From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 00:09:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:09:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] One alternative for the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >QED. I was responding to the claim that the laws cannot be >changed until 2018. Either the minutes of the WFBLC are not >law, or the laws can be changed. Richard Hills quibbles: A false dichotomy. The Laws can only be changed by a decision of the WBF Drafting Committee which is ratified by the WBF Executive. For example, the 2008 revision of the 2007 Law 27. But under WBF Regulations the Laws can be interpreted and clarified by the minutes of the WBF Laws Committee, again after ratification of those minutes by the WBF Executive. Robert Frick asserted: >I have always assumed that the minutes are not the laws. >The practical question is if people treat those minutes as >law or not Richard Hills quibbles: Ignorantia juris non excusat. Robert Frick noted: >and if the NBOs or whatever disburse them to players. Richard Hills concurs: Beware of the leopard! Sven Pran noted: >>I have since long ago ignored all messages from Herman, >>and only very occasionally do I waste time by peeping if >>there could be anything of interest from him. There are >>also several distinguished contributors to blml that >>simply have quit this list. I consider that a pity >>because the list still has much to offer. Richard Hills concurs: Nigel Guthrie and I validly have different perceptions of the merits of the 1987 scoring changes. Likewise Maciej Bystry and Herman De Wael validly have different perceptions of what the Lawbook should say in 2018. However, given the unequivocal nature of the October 2008 WBF LC minutes, it is pernicious for Herman De Wael to attempt to mislead newbies to blml as to what is Lawful and unLawful now. Indeed, in the end it is self-defeating for Herman De Wael to do so, as more and more blmlers are joining Sven Pran in automatically deleting Herman's emails, which means that any gems Herman produces (on one recent occasion Grattan Endicott fully agreed with a De Wael proposition) will be unread by many blmlers. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mon Dec 1 01:01:00 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:01:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Mon Dec 1 01:01:01 2008 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for November 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 141 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 96 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 76 darkbystry (at) wp.pl 55 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 46 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 42 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 41 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 31 svenpran (at) online.no 19 ehaa (at) starpower.net 16 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 16 john (at) asimere.com 16 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 15 geller (at) nifty.com 11 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 11 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 11 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 8 schoderb (at) msn.com 7 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 7 gro (at) bridgepro.de 6 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 6 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 6 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 6 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 5 sater (at) xs4all.nl 5 harsanyi (at) t-online.de 5 Harsanyi (at) t-online.de 4 henk (at) ripe.net 4 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 3 adam (at) irvine.com 3 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 2 picatou (at) picatou.com 2 matthias.schueller (at) gmx.de 2 karel (at) esatclear.ie 2 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 1 wrgptfan (at) gmail.com 1 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 1 mustikka (at) charter.net 1 james.boyce (at) oracle.com 1 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 1 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 1 bobpark (at) connecttime.net 1 blml (at) spiske.net 1 blml (at) bridgescore.de From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 1 01:19:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 01:19:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question In-Reply-To: References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001701c9534a$72f82480$58e86d80$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............... > Do people agree with this? The player could not open 1C, so the meaning of > the 1C opening does not have to be divulged? Is that what Sven meant when > he said the answer was obvious? I simply pointed out that opponents are always entitled to a description of the partnership's 1C opening bid under Law 40A1 which applies on disclosures before play begins (commonly in the form of a CC), They are only entitled to such information under Law 20F1(which applies on questions during the auction) if the 1C opening bid was actually made or could have been made as an alternative to the actual call made. I also pointed out that the intended meaning of an illegal call that is withdrawn (for whatever reason) may only be assumed by opponents at their own risk. A 1C bid need not for instance necessarily show opening values, it can have been an unintended call where the intended call would have an even entirely different meaning. If the provided declaration (Law 40A1) did not include a description of a 1C opening bid then opponents are (subject to regulations) entitled to get such information at any time during the auction, but they are not entitled to any redress for damage if they mistakenly assume that the withdrawn 1C bid was an opening bid and in fact it was not. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 1 01:22:12 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 01:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001801c9534a$db8372c0$928a5840$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sent: 30. november 2008 23:36 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Robert Frick asked: > > >North ?East ?South ?West > >1C ? ? 1C/2C > > > >The insufficient bid of 1C is corrected to 2C. Is partner of the > >insufficient bidder required to divulge the partnership agreements, > >etc., of an opening 1C bid? > > Peter Eidt quotes Law 20F1: > > "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may > request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the > opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually > made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, > and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these > are matters of partnership understanding." > > Richard Hills asks: > > Is an insufficient bid a call actually made? NO > Or is an insufficient bid a call merely potentially made, becoming > actually made if and only if LHO accepts it under Law 27A? YES > > Is a non-accepted insufficient bid a relevant alternative call? NO, an illegal call can never be a relevant alternative > Or is a non-accepted and/or hypothetical illegal call never relevant? NEVER Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 1 02:02:38 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:02:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801c9534a$db8372c0$928a5840$@no> References: <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <001801c9534a$db8372c0$928a5840$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:22:12 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Sent: 30. november 2008 23:36 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Robert Frick asked: >> >> >North ?East ?South ?West >> >1C ? ? 1C/2C >> > >> >The insufficient bid of 1C is corrected to 2C. Is partner of the >> >insufficient bidder required to divulge the partnership agreements, >> >etc., of an opening 1C bid? >> >> Peter Eidt quotes Law 20F1: >> >> "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may >> request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the >> opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually >> made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, >> and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these >> are matters of partnership understanding." >> >> Richard Hills asks: >> >> Is an insufficient bid a call actually made? > > NO The terminology is insufficient bid, implying that it is a bid. I am aware that you can have terms like "fake gold" which does not imply that it is gold. And "insufficient" potentially falls into this category. But why would anyone call it a bid if they thought it wasn't a bid? "A bid designates a number of odd tricks...from one to seven and a denomination." (Law 18) So the insufficient utterance fits the definition of a bid. There is no mention in Law 27 of the insufficient bid becoming a real bid only when it is accepted. (Nor is there any mention of unintended bids becoming real bids when partner calls.) If I am wrong, please tell me, because this will influence how I apply Law 26, which refers to withdrawn calls. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 02:45:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:45:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] One alternative for the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick, philosopher: >The lawbook is self-contradictory. That's probably >unavoidable. Richard Hills, philosopher: No, it is possible to interpret the Lawbook in a self-contradictory way. But an underlying assumption of all Duplicate Bridge Laws authorities is that all interpretations of the Lawbook should avoid consequential self-contradictions. Robert Frick, philosopher: >Try "Any insufficient bid may be accepted (treated >as legal) at the option of offender's LHO." That >is inconsistent with a plain reading of Law 25, and >attempts to resolve the inconsistency AFAIK just >produce new ones. > >Resolving that contradiction is pretty simple, but >that doesn't make it disappear from the laws. Law 25A1, second sentence: "The second (intended) call stands and is subject to the appropriate Law." Richard Hills, philosopher: This implies, mutatis mutandis, that the first (unintended) call does not stand. If it does not stand, then the first (unintended) call -- if insufficient -- cannot be accepted under Law 27A. Of course, because the second (intended) call not only stands, but also is subject to the appropriate Law, then if the second (intended) call is insufficient it may be accepted under Law 27A. This standard resolution of an apparent, but not actual, inconsistency has been applied by very experienced Directors such as David Stevenson for many years. What's the problem? The problem is that very inexperienced Directors do not yet have access to Ton Kooijman's Appendix to the Lawbook, as it is not quite completed. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 1 03:01:46 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:01:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] reverse hesitation - how would you rule ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0811280657m409e5bc0m6eb11b6bc8ae6a48@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman asked: >Can you give the table result and hands? >Or at least, please make them up. Richard Hills make-up: Previously discussed several times on blml was an Edgar Kaplan editorial in The Bridge World. As I (perhaps imperfectly) recall, one player had a void in the opponents' trump suit and his partner slooooowly doubled for penalties. The player ethically passed. Virtue for the player was rewarded when his partner held a big trump stack. The Appeals Committee adjusted the score on the grounds that passing was not a logical alternative. Edgar Kaplan noted that the Appeals Committee had incorrectly opted for a Law 16 score adjustment. Edgar argued that if any action was to be taken, it had to be taken against the player's partner, and not a trivial score adjustment but rather a severe disciplinary penalty. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Dec 1 03:59:53 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:59:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] reverse hesitation - how would you rule ?[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills make-up: > > Previously discussed several times on blml > was an Edgar Kaplan editorial in The Bridge > World. > > As I (perhaps imperfectly) recall, one > player had a void in the opponents' trump > suit and his partner slooooowly doubled > for penalties. > > The player ethically passed. Virtue for > the player was rewarded when his partner > held a big trump stack. > > The Appeals Committee adjusted the score > on the grounds that passing was not a > logical alternative. > > Edgar Kaplan noted that the Appeals > Committee had incorrectly opted for a Law > 16 score adjustment. Edgar argued that if > any action was to be taken, it had to be > taken against the player's partner, and not > a trivial score adjustment but rather a > severe disciplinary penalty. And that might be hard to impose. The doubler probably suspects that his partner is void in trumps, so he has a legitimate reason to think; will he be better off doubling and taking the risk that someone will pull, or passing? However, a score adjustment would be proper if the slow double is an infraction. The player committed an infraction (hesitating without cause), and thus we should adjust to the result which would have occurred without the infraction, which would either be the undoubled penalty or the result which would occur if the player ran. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 04:11:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:11:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Bicycle Thief [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49303A93.2030901@skynet.be> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: >>In case of the dWS virtually all misdeeds will be detected. So >>severe penalties will be a sufficient deterrent. Herman De Wael: >That is of course true. > >But the misdeeds will not be registered. You will not know, when you >catch your bicycle thief, if he has stolen any bikes before. Because >the previous time he'll have played somewhere else, under a different >director, who also just gave him a slap on the wrist. Wikipedia: Ladri di biciclette (released in English as The Bicycle Thief or Bicycle Thieves) placed sixth as the greatest film ever made in the latest directors poll, conducted in 2002. Early in the film, the bike is stolen, and Antonio and his son Bruno spend the remainder of the film searching for it. Antonio manages to locate the thief (who had already sold the bicycle) and summons the police, but with no proof and with the thief's neighbours willing to give him a false alibi, he abandons this cause. Herman De Wael: >What is so terribly wrong with my set of laws? Wikipedia: At the end of the film Antonio, desperate to keep his job, attempts to steal a bicycle himself. He is caught and humiliated in front of Bruno, but the owner of the bicycle declines to press charges, realizing that the humiliation is punishment enough. Antonio and his family face a bleak future as the film ends, coupled with Antonio's realization that he is not morally superior to the thief. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 1 04:53:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:53:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] reverse hesitation - how would you rule ? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560811281226i631e1f90wbc43cf6859cad63a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows: >This is irrelevant. What others consider is standard has no >bearing on what this particular pair play. > >I had a ruling against me earlier this year "most play penalty >doubles...so the slow double suggests ... and our ruling is ...". >This despite us making a clear statement that our double was not >penalties and we had documented evidence to support this. Richard Hills: An arguably illegal ruling under the 1997 Laws then in force, but an unequivocally illegal ruling under the 2007 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." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 1 05:10:29 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:10:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <005d01c95311$bdd879c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be> <001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be> <001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001a01c9530e$1380b760$3a822620$@com> <005d01c95311$bdd879c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081201150541.01c4aaf8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:33 AM 1/12/2008, you wrote: >Hi, > > > One small piece of advice: people who challenge one another to contests >with > > large amounts of a named currency at stake are likely to have their >messages > > end up in the junk email folders of other people. The reason for this is, >I > > hope, obvious. > >You are right David, that was unnecessary. Maybe I should simply ignore >things that make me mad. > >Thanks for your remainder. > >I apologize Herman and everyone who could feel in any way offended or >disgusted by my messages. Maciej, I for one have greatly enjoyed your agumentative clarity and have placed you on my list of contributors whose opinion I value. Unfortunately you have replaced Stephanie in a fruitless attempt to nail jelly to the wall, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 1 05:14:51 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:14:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] A question In-Reply-To: References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081201151313.03de30f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:26 AM 1/12/2008, you wrote: >North East South West >1C 1C/2C > >The insufficient bid of 1C is corrected to 2C. Is partner of the >insufficient bidder required to divulge the partnership agreements, etc., >of an opening 1C bid? > > >Sorry if this is obvious. Your answer is interesting only if you think >that not all partnership agreements, etc., must be divulged upon request. > >Bob Presumably, the TD has already gone down this route, and has allowed 2C without penalty or otherwise? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 05:24:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:24:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turned poacher. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003c01c951c0$b5fac110$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: [snip] >If the player gives SE [systemic explanations] only he has >complied with the requirement of the law and is not called >upon to do more. If he volunteers more, this is extraneous; >he must not do so in a way to violate Law 75B or 20F5(a), >or indeed any law. > >To give extraneous information in such a way incurs risk; >if the opponent becomes confused or goes wrong in >consequence it is the explainer who is in the hot seat. >Partner, too, must be careful not to use the UI. It is >truly tricky to explore how far one can go in this >direction, if at all, without going directly against a law >in the book. Any ideas, using my law book not Herman's? > ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Q: Please explain your partner's call under Law 20F3? A: We have neither an explicit nor an implicit pre-existing mutual partnership understanding under Law 40B6. In a word, "Undiscussed". However, I will extraneously tell you that I am arbitrarily assuming that partner's intent is such-and-such, so my future calls will be consistent with that assumption (but this final extraneous sentence will restrict partner's selection of logical alternatives under Laws 16, 73C and 75A). On the other hand... Law 80B2(f): "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." The ABF has announced a supplementary and non-conflicting regulation prohibiting extraneous statements and requiring systemic explanations only (but clarifying that implicit understandings are systemic). In non-ABF NBOs, on the other other hand... 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." _Unnecessarily_ restricting partner's logical alternatives is not seeking to obtain a higher score, hence seems to me to be an infraction of Law 72A. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 1 05:55:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:55:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081201151313.03de30f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Robert Frick: >>North East South West >>1C 1C/2C >> >>The insufficient bid of 1C is corrected to 2C. Is partner of >>the insufficient bidder required to divulge the partnership >>agreements, etc., of an opening 1C bid? >> >>Sorry if this is obvious. Your answer is interesting only if >>you think that not all partnership agreements, etc., must be >>divulged upon request. Tony Musgrove: >Presumably, the TD has already gone down this route, and has >allowed 2C without penalty or otherwise? > >Cheers, > >Tony (Sydney) Grattan Endicott (17th October 2008): (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.) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 1 06:08:19 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:08:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20081201151313.03de30f8@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081201160612.01bd8320@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 03:55 PM 1/12/2008, you wrote: >Robert Frick: > > >>North East South West > >>1C 1C/2C > >> > >>The insufficient bid of 1C is corrected to 2C. Is partner of > >>the insufficient bidder required to divulge the partnership > >>agreements, etc., of an opening 1C bid? > >> > >>Sorry if this is obvious. Your answer is interesting only if > >>you think that not all partnership agreements, etc., must be > >>divulged upon request. > >Tony Musgrove: > > >Presumably, the TD has already gone down this route, and has > >allowed 2C without penalty or otherwise? > > > >Cheers, > > > >Tony (Sydney) > >Grattan Endicott (17th October 2008): > >(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.) > Yes, it is a bit unclear whether there was any TD involvement at all. However, it does not seem to have been simply a mispull and corrected at the table, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 1 08:00:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:00:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Peter Eidt quoted Law 20F1: "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." Richard Hills asked: >>>Is an insufficient bid a call actually made? Sven Pran asserted: >>NO Robert Frick quibbled: >The terminology is insufficient bid, implying that it is a bid. [snip] >If I am wrong, please tell me, because this will influence how I >apply Law 26, which refers to withdrawn calls. Richard Hills quotes Law 26A: "...the withdrawn call related solely to a specified suit..." Richard Hills asks: If a withdrawn insufficient bid related solely to a specified suit, so therefore it had a meaning which was a matter of partnership understanding, must it be explained following a query about the prior auction? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 1 09:07:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] One alternative for the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49339B56.70105@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > However, given the unequivocal nature of the October 2008 > WBF LC minutes, it is pernicious for Herman De Wael to > attempt to mislead newbies to blml as to what is Lawful > and unLawful now. > Well, can we then discuss what the LC minute actually means? Does it say that SEs are accepted. Or does it say that CEs are outlawed. And if it does the latter - what is the penalty? Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 1 09:08:46 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 08:08:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turned poacher. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001401c9538c$0bec6b60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Gamekeeper turned poacher. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott: > > [snip] > >>If the player gives SE [systemic explanations] only he has >>complied with the requirement of the law and is not called >>upon to do more. If he volunteers more, this is extraneous; >>he must not do so in a way to violate Law 75B or 20F5(a), >>or indeed any law. >> >>To give extraneous information in such a way incurs risk; >>if the opponent becomes confused or goes wrong in >>consequence it is the explainer who is in the hot seat. >>Partner, too, must be careful not to use the UI. It is >>truly tricky to explore how far one can go in this >>direction, if at all, without going directly against a law >>in the book. Any ideas, using my law book not Herman's? >> ~ G ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Q: Please explain your partner's call under Law 20F3? > > A: We have neither an explicit nor an implicit pre-existing > mutual partnership understanding under Law 40B6. In a > word, "Undiscussed". However, I will extraneously tell you > that I am arbitrarily assuming that partner's intent is > such-and-such, so my future calls will be consistent with > that assumption (but this final extraneous sentence will > restrict partner's selection of logical alternatives under > Laws 16, 73C and 75A). > > On the other hand... > > Law 80B2(f): > > "The Tournament Organizer's powers and duties include: > to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in > conflict with, these Laws." > > The ABF has announced a supplementary and non-conflicting > regulation prohibiting extraneous statements and requiring > systemic explanations only (but clarifying that implicit > understandings are systemic). > > In non-ABF NBOs, on the other other hand... > > 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." > > _Unnecessarily_ restricting partner's logical alternatives > is not seeking to obtain a higher score, hence seems to me > to be an infraction of Law 72A. > +=+ Yes. I think it is long established that the player must not say how he is going to take the hand. This flight of fancy on my part does not lead anywhere I think. But I was just interested to see whether any of the brains on this forum could produce anything. So far as I am concerned the law remains what it was, ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:10:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:10:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be> <001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be> OK Maciej, I accept any challenge. Please state what you want to say, and allow me to challenge your logic. Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> And I have the same gall again. I think you are wrong, and all the words >> I wrote are of application to both cases you just mentioned. > > All right, that's enough. Are you ready to support your words? I've proposed > a contest in logic. Now I'm repeating this offer. I demand an apology, if > not, then have enough courage to take part in the challenge. Prize - 10000 > Euro. Time - whenever you wish. Contest - to be chosen. > > I'm waiting. I won't let anybody to have a gall to claim that he knows > better what I write than myself. > You answered a question and when I contested that answer you told me it was not an answer to the question I thought it was. Let's go back and see al this. Or not, such a game of "Yes-No" is not important. This is not about winning or losing an argument, it is about bridge laws. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:14:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:14:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <005d01c95311$bdd879c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001a01c9530e$1380b760$3a822620$@com> <005d01c95311$bdd879c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49339CD8.1070005@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> One small piece of advice: people who challenge one another to contests > with >> large amounts of a named currency at stake are likely to have their > messages >> end up in the junk email folders of other people. The reason for this is, > I >> hope, obvious. > > You are right David, that was unnecessary. Maybe I should simply ignore > things that make me mad. > > Thanks for your remainder. > > I apologize Herman and everyone who could feel in any way offended or > disgusted by my messages. > I accept the apology, even if I did not feel offended. I know it is sometimes very hard to keep courtesy in messages when replying to something one finds terribly wrong. I do the same and I apologise if I strike a nerve too many. I like the discussion we are having Maciej, I only hope your views are not so cast in steel that you are totally unable to imagine that you may have some things wrong. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:24:36 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:24:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> The WBFLC did not say why they ruled on this issue. If the laws are clear, >> why would they rule? Why would they have to? I have been thinking about >> this. > > They simply clarified that the words "in any manner" should mean "in any > manner except when realizing the obligations put upon the player by the > other Laws". That was what they always meant but some people (like Herman) > found this as a hole and used to their own ideas. And actually I admit that > Herman was in part right. Such holes are unnecessary and not every TD in the > world has access to BLML or private clarifications from WBFLC members. So it > would be better to have this words corrected in the Laws, not by the Minute. > But that doesn't change the actual meaning of L20F1 which now undoubtly > makes dWS illegal. > Well, I rather regret that you write undoubtably there. What did we have? We had a law which prohibited SE actions. L20F5a. It was felt by the WBFLC (and by everyone incluing me) that such a prohibition was not right. Indeed, many people thought that to give correct explanations should be more important. Others, like me, did not agree with that majority thinking, but felt that you could not blame any player for thinking like that. So the WBFLC wrote an interpretation saying that breaking L20F5a in these situations is acceptable. I fully agree with such an interpretation. But does it also mean that CEs are "outlawed"? I don't see that written, and I don't find "undoubtably" that this follow from the written text. After all, the SE actions are not made legal by the interpretation. L20F5a does not provide for any penalty. That is left to L16, with the repercussions of the UI given being fully present. The interpretation does not change anything to that. The UI is still being given and shall put the partner into restrictions. The SE actions are not made legal. Consequently, the SE actions are made acceptable, and it is not illogical for there to be two acceptable actions. I do not read the interpretation as outlawing the CE, and anyone who thinks it "undoubtably" does is wrong. There is doubt. I urge the WBFLC further to not emit any further interpretations about CEs until after they ahd a good and long thought about two questions which have not yet been answered by them: - how certain does a player have to be (that his partner was in faact right) before he is allowed to give a CE? - what penalty is there to be given to a layer who gives a CE when this is outlawed. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:32:42 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:32:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> Message-ID: <4933A12A.9020406@skynet.be> Hello Sven, long time no read (and I do realise why) Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ........... >> So, it seems obvious to me, the issue hinges on relevant. > > Sure: If a player during the auction could request explanation on "calls not > made" he could request complete information on the opening bid of 1NT in the > Vienna system even from a partnership that had never heard of Vienna, and he > could request complete information from a partnership using the strong club > system (e.g. Precision) on a one club opening bid even after a preemptive > opening bid of three clubs. > Completely correct. > The addition of the word "relevant" limits the range of calls for which an > explanation can be requested during the auction to such calls that could > have been used in the actual situation when a player had selected a > different call. Law 20F1 does not open any door for requesting general > bridge lessons. > Again, completely correct. > So explanations of 4NT Blackwood (and the systemic answers to this bid) can > only be requested after a situation in which 4NT Blackwood was available to > the player. This has obviously not been the case when 4NT was a request for > preference in minors whatever partner to the 4NT bidder explained. > Not correct anymore. You correctly argue that one should not be allowed to ask about non-relevant parts of the system. But to jump from that to the next sentence means that you have interpreted "relevant" in your own way. I interpret "relevant" in a more liberal way. Anything that the opponents can use to form a picture of the hand that made the bid, looks like "relevant" to me. Like they say in American Courtroom Drama's: "objection your honor, irrelevant" "I'll prove the relevance later, your honor" "I'll allow it, but get to the point quickly, please counsel" Look Sven, I am not saying your conclusion is wrong, only the logic you used in getting there. I humbly ask you to admit this, and to look at your conclusion in the light of your wrong logic. Maybe you'll find that your conclusion is wrong too - maybe you'll try and find some other logic, but I urge you to think again, and not allow your conclusion to set in concrete in your mind. And yes, I realise that the WBFLC have issued an interpretation saying that your conclusion is the right one. I accept that - they have this right (I mean power - I think they were wrong). But you were talking about the logic that leads to this conclusion. That logic is wrong. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:41:42 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:41:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] A question In-Reply-To: <001701c9534a$72f82480$58e86d80$@no> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <001701c9534a$72f82480$58e86d80$@no> Message-ID: <4933A346.9090002@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............... >> Do people agree with this? The player could not open 1C, so the >> meaning of the 1C opening does not have to be divulged? Is that >> what Sven meant when he said the answer was obvious? > > I simply pointed out that opponents are always entitled to a > description of the partnership's 1C opening bid under Law 40A1 which > applies on disclosures before play begins (commonly in the form of a > CC), > > They are only entitled to such information under Law 20F1(which > applies on questions during the auction) if the 1C opening bid was > actually made or could have been made as an alternative to the actual > call made. > > I also pointed out that the intended meaning of an illegal call that > is withdrawn (for whatever reason) may only be assumed by opponents > at their own risk. A 1C bid need not for instance necessarily show > opening values, it can have been an unintended call where the > intended call would have an even entirely different meaning. > Surely you realise that this is irrelevant to the discussion. The opponents may assume at their own risk that 1C was intended as an opening, but in order to draw any inference from that assumption, they need to know what 1C means as an opening. So again, Sven, while what you say is right, your logic is wrong, and your conclusion therefore faulty. > If the provided declaration (Law 40A1) did not include a description > of a 1C opening bid then opponents are (subject to regulations) > entitled to get such information at any time during the auction, but > they are not entitled to any redress for damage if they mistakenly > assume that the withdrawn 1C bid was an opening bid and in fact it > was not. > L40B2 has been written under the assumption that anything which the SO does not consider important enough to require being put on a SC, can still be asked about later on. The SC will write down regulations as to what needs to be written on the SC with the same assumption. To make the distinction that one can ask about the meaning of an insufficient 1C opening, but not of the answers to Smithtown Blackwood, based solely on their presence on a fully completed SC, is simply wrong. That puts the whole structure on which SCs are based under too much strain. > Sven > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:49:26 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:49:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be> <005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4933A516.30609@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Maybe we should ask the question of the explainer then. He has explained >> 4NT as Blackwood, and this is an incomplete answer. He should have said >> something like RKCB, and if that is unknown to opponents, he should also >> give the complete answering scheme with it. > > That is at least a constructive proposal. But to allow for something like > that would create many problems - imagine the opponents asking about > Blackwood and the responder giving the set of answers to remind his partner > of them. The creation of UI would be to great to cope with it (it would be > hard to prove that the partner earlier forgot the responses). > > But it seems for me the best way to introduce the dWS through the kitchen > doors. If you are able to expand this topic it may be worth considering. > Thank you for the praise. I do not advocate asking the 5Di bidder what the Smithtown Blackwood responses mean. What I am pointing out is that once it is uttered, the word "Blackwood" is an incomplete explanation. That word should be augmented, including the answering scheme. Since the partner knows which kind of Blackwood is being played in the partnership (which is the assumption under which this whole thread is being played out), it seems logical to have him explain. But the point is that it is relevant, it is known, and there is no amount of logic which can prove that the answer need not be given. However, completely against that logic (but not being bound by it), the WBFLC have given an interpretation. This answer need not be given, and we should not continue this discussion. This matter is closed. I only urge my colleagues to stop saying that this is "logical". Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 09:59:41 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:59:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be> <005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> OK. That may well be called confusing. >> But isn't that confusion exactly the same as the one which is given off >> by the second conversation at once? > > There is some confusion but the amount is significantly reduced. You have to > cope only with one piece of correction of MI. But after the auction you get > a whole set of corrections - *all* the explanations are changed. > Maciej, be real. What causes the confusion? The explanation that 4NT was Blackwood. All the rest is just the same confusion. To say that it is reduced, OK, I'll admit that. To add the word "significantly" is your own idea - I do not agree. >>> He is shocked by the correction of *all* his assumptions and has to do > his >>> work for the second time under the time pressure and in the confused > state >>> of mind. Don't you really realize that it's much easier to make a simple >>> mistake in such a state? >> Yes, I can imagine that - and I would be lenient towards it when >> adjusting for the MI given. > > But Herman, there won't be any MI anymore. That's the crux of the matter. No Maciej, there will. There is at least one call made that was done under MI. The TD needs to deal with that one. And since there is no other, the opponents will say that they would not ... And indeed the MI is the crux of the matter - but only in your eyes is MI the most important crime in the book. I don't agree, and the lawbook neither. You have so much more UI to deal with. Anyway, to state that one ruling or another is going to be more or less difficult is not why we are here, are we? If the Law says such-and-such ruling is needed, we give that ruling. But then again, this was your argument, and Grattan's. I state that I don't agree with your conclusions, so please don't call them "logic" or anything. And I don't think your conclusion matters. > Every mistake made after the correction will count. You can't redress that, > there is no Law that allows for it. > >> And actually, all this was not my point. My point was that Grattan >> thinks the second conversation is confusing and the first one isn't. >> That is so totally wrong as to defy belief. I am glad you agree with >> that part at least. > > I can't speak for Grattan but I doubt that he thinks like that. Maybe he > thinks along my lines? > Well, he wrote it like I said. I cannot know what he thinks but I assume his thoughts are reflected by his words. >> I don't kow how many years you play and direct bridge, and at what >> level, so I cannot comment on how strange I find your absolute >> convictions that yours is the only possible way bridge can be played. > > That is not dependent on my playing career. My logic derives from the > fundaments of bridge - no player is entitled to know the contents of the > hand of any other player. That is rhetoric. I may not be entitled to know that he has one ace, but I am entitled (IMO) that with 5Di he has shown one ace. To say that since I am not entitled to the first, I should not be worried if I don't get the second is completely devoid of any logic. > So I can't find any reason to tell to the > opponents how many Aces are shown by 5D. I can find such reasons. Again, your logic is faulty. It is not because you cannot find reasons for something to be like it is, that it is not like it is. > They know about mixup, they know > about pre-alerts, CC, sometimes about our methods, about most popular > versions of Blackwood. Why should I reveal anything more? Because it is something they want to know? > Maybe 1 ace is not > so important but look at Bob's example - there your approach would > automatically result in the top for the NOS without even making the opening > lead. > And a top for NOS has suddenly become a bad thing? > Yes, it may seem inconsistent with my approach (all the worst for the OS) > but I still want bridge to be played and without any, even the smallest, > risk the game is played in open hands and that I can't approve of. > All answered higher. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 1 10:20:52 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:20:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?A_question_=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <001801c9534a$db8372c0$928a5840$@no> References: <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <001801c9534a$db8372c0$928a5840$@no> Message-ID: <1L74xY-15U8Aq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > > Sent: 30. november 2008 23:36 > > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Robert Frick asked: > > > > > North ?East ?South ?West > > > 1C ? ? 1C/2C > > > > > > The insufficient bid of 1C is corrected to 2C. Is partner of the > > > insufficient bidder required to divulge the partnership > > > agreements, etc., of an opening 1C bid? > > > > > > > Peter Eidt quotes Law 20F1: > > > > "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may > > request, but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the > > opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls > > actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were > > not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action > > where these are matters of partnership understanding." > > > > Richard Hills asks: > > > > Is an insufficient bid a call actually made? > > > > NO > > Or is an insufficient bid a call merely potentially made, becoming > > actually made if and only if LHO accepts it under Law 27A? > > YES > > > > > Is a non-accepted insufficient bid a relevant alternative call? > > NO, an illegal call can never be a relevant alternative > > > Or is a non-accepted and/or hypothetical illegal call never > > relevant? > > NEVER > > Sven Max Bavin (from: 2008 TD Seminar in Torino, Law 27, "Recommended Tournament Director procedure"): 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD])." Peter Eidt: Of course opponents are not entitled to know the meaning of the insufficient bid, as (and as long as) there must not be any systemic meaning in most areas of the world. But for any sensible guess opponents need to know the meaning of some hypothetical calls (such as "did not see the call(s) before", or "wanted to open the bidding", etc.). From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 10:51:40 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 10:51:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > But that doesn't change the actual meaning of L20F1 which now undoubtly > > makes dWS illegal. > > > > Well, I rather regret that you write undoubtably there. > > What did we have? We had a law which prohibited SE actions. L20F5a. "Prohibited" only in the opinion of some people. In the opinion of the lawmakers (and other people) it didn't. But let's forget about it - that's history. > But does it also mean that CEs are "outlawed"? I don't see that written, > and I don't find "undoubtably" that this follow from the written text. CEs are not outlawed by L20F5a and any of its interpretations. CEs are outlawed because of L20F1. Giving MI is always an infraction although there is no prescribed penalty and many times it doesn't result in damage. Deliberately giving MI is worse - it is additionally forbidden by L72B1. To make it clear - I don't think the mere fact that you give CEs infracts the Laws. The Laws are broken becuase you give CEs *instead of* SEs. And not giving SEs is an infraction. > After all, the SE actions are not made legal by the interpretation. > L20F5a does not provide for any penalty. That is left to L16, with the > repercussions of the UI given being fully present. The interpretation > does not change anything to that. The UI is still being given and shall > put the partner into restrictions. The SE actions are not made legal. SEs are legal. The fact that they give UI doesn't make them illegal. Hesitating often gives UI and is not illegal. Only the usage of UI is illegal. > I do not read the interpretation as outlawing the CE, and anyone who > thinks it "undoubtably" does is wrong. There is doubt. Sorry, I can cite your statements from the past. You've always quarreled that you are forced to break one of the Laws - 20F1 or 20F5a and therefore it was appropriate for you to choose which one. Now you admit that L20F5a makes SEs accepted. So what's left? > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 11:09:48 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:09:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A516.30609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003101c9539c$f17a56a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > What I am pointing out is that once it is uttered, the > word "Blackwood" is an incomplete explanation. That word should be > augmented, including the answering scheme. I'm not so sure. L20F1 says you have to disclose the meaning of the call, not of the possible follow-ups, not of the whole convention. It's quite logical - otherwise it would be a perfect means to transmit legal UI to the partner. So maybe "Blackwood" is too little, but "asks partner to show the number of Aces in his hand (if RKCB than of course also the supposed trumps and so on)" is everything you should say. The follow-ups can be checked on CC or questioned after the partner's answer. [snipped about "logic"] Sorry, in this point we'll never agree. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 11:29:13 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 11:29:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > OK Maciej, > > I accept any challenge. > > Please state what you want to say, and allow me to challenge your logic. Moved to private. > You answered a question and when I contested that answer you told me it > was not an answer to the question I thought it was. Let's go back and > see al this. Exactly. And this should be said earlier, before this whole mess. I may be right in my ideas, I may be wrong, but I'm a conscious person and I know what I'm responding to. That's why it made me furious when you claimed you know better. > Or not, such a game of "Yes-No" is not important. This is not about > winning or losing an argument, it is about bridge laws. Agreed. But Bob's case was different from the dWS. The Laws do not explicitly forbid giving additional information to the opponents, only 72A may stand on your way (but it's nearly always unforceable in such cases). In dWS you break 20F1 (because it's during the auction). > Herman. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 11:43:25 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:43:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be> <001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >>> But that doesn't change the actual meaning of L20F1 which now undoubtly >>> makes dWS illegal. >>> >> Well, I rather regret that you write undoubtably there. >> >> What did we have? We had a law which prohibited SE actions. L20F5a. > > "Prohibited" only in the opinion of some people. In the opinion of the > lawmakers (and other people) it didn't. But let's forget about it - that's > history. > Come on Maciej, whatever you may think about there being good reasons to do it anyway, you cannot maintain that "diamond preference" is not "indicating in (some) manner that a mistake has been made". If you believe that, there is no need to discuss further. But as you said - let's forget about it. >> But does it also mean that CEs are "outlawed"? I don't see that written, >> and I don't find "undoubtably" that this follow from the written text. > > CEs are not outlawed by L20F5a and any of its interpretations. CEs are > outlawed because of L20F1. NO. > Giving MI is always an infraction although there > is no prescribed penalty and many times it doesn't result in damage. CEs are an infraction, yes. I have always said so, and I accept the consequences. But I used the word "outlawed" for a very important reason - to indicate that I am not talking about infractions but about something worse. Considering that there are two options, both of which constitute infractions (or do you believe that SEs do not constitute an infraction?), we have to decide which of the options are "acceptable". Neither one can be legal, so at least one of them needs to be termed acceptable. The reverse of acceptable is outlawed. We cannot outlaw them both, as that would mean a player has no option left but to go home, but we need not outlaw either. It is perfectly possible for both options to be acceptable. Until you understand these distinctions between "acceptable" and "legal", and between "infraction" and "outlawed", there is no need to continue any discussion. If I say that something is "acceptable" and you say it's an "infraction" then we are talking at cross-purposes. Given these definitions. Do you agree that: -SEs are infractions? -SEs are acceptable? -CEs are infractions? -CEs can be acceptable or outlawed? this is the only think we are discussing. > Deliberately giving MI is worse - it is additionally forbidden by L72B1. > It is. But this is not deliberate, it is trying to follow another law. If you can accept that it is acceptable to give UI in order to avoid giving MI, then why can you not imagine that it might be acceptable to give MI in order to avoid giving UI? > To make it clear - I don't think the mere fact that you give CEs infracts > the Laws. The Laws are broken becuase you give CEs *instead of* SEs. And not > giving SEs is an infraction. > But of course giving CEs infracts the laws. I have never said it didn't. So there is no need to convince me of that. But you have to understand the difference between infractions and acceptability. There is no logical reason why two conflicting actions can not both be acceptable. Consider this analogy: It used to be an infraction, in Europe, to ask partner-defender if he had revoked. Now this is no longer an infraction. That means that to ask now is "acceptable" (it is only marginally legal, since UI laws do apply on it). But certainly not asking is also "acceptable". So you have two conflicting actions, both of which are acceptable. What you are suggesting (in some stretched analogy) is like making not asking "outlawed", so that you are required to show surprise when partner shows out earlier than you expected, and not doing so could lead to score corrections and PPs. Yes I know this analogy is silly. It is precisely because there is no analogy in the bridge laws that your proposed law (you must give UI) is, IMO, equally silly. >> After all, the SE actions are not made legal by the interpretation. >> L20F5a does not provide for any penalty. That is left to L16, with the >> repercussions of the UI given being fully present. The interpretation >> does not change anything to that. The UI is still being given and shall >> put the partner into restrictions. The SE actions are not made legal. > > SEs are legal. The fact that they give UI doesn't make them illegal. > Hesitating often gives UI and is not illegal. Only the usage of UI is > illegal. > Again, just words. If something contains a legal penalty (even if only in the form of restricting partner from doing what he believes is the correct bridge action), then I call it illegal. You calling it legal does not make it so. And again: SEs are not legal - L20F5a. >> I do not read the interpretation as outlawing the CE, and anyone who >> thinks it "undoubtably" does is wrong. There is doubt. > > Sorry, I can cite your statements from the past. You've always quarreled > that you are forced to break one of the Laws - 20F1 or 20F5a and therefore > it was appropriate for you to choose which one. Now you admit that L20F5a > makes SEs accepted. So what's left? > You start from a quite wrong conception - that there is only one action which is acceptable. It is perfectly logical for there to be two acceptable options! I have never stated otherwise, and if you have failed to understand this, then I apologise for not being completely clear in what I meant. I hope I have cleared up that issue. Please look at the title of this thread - which started with me saying just this: there are not two options (outlawing CE and outlawing SE) but three (accepting both)! >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 11:46:20 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:46:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <003101c9539c$f17a56a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A516.30609@skynet.be> <003101c9539c$f17a56a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4933C07C.2000809@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> What I am pointing out is that once it is uttered, the >> word "Blackwood" is an incomplete explanation. That word should be >> augmented, including the answering scheme. > > I'm not so sure. L20F1 says you have to disclose the meaning of the call, > not of the possible follow-ups, not of the whole convention. It's quite > logical - otherwise it would be a perfect means to transmit legal UI to the > partner. So maybe "Blackwood" is too little, but "asks partner to show the > number of Aces in his hand (if RKCB than of course also the supposed trumps > and so on)" is everything you should say. The follow-ups can be checked on > CC or questioned after the partner's answer. > Indeed - unless some lunatic decides to outlaw that next question. > [snipped about "logic"] > > Sorry, in this point we'll never agree. > I don't remember which point, but if it contained the word logic, it is very sad that you should say we shall not agree. I can disagree over opinion, but to disagree about logic seems to me impossible. Maybe some independent auditor can check the logical value of my statements? And refusing to comment, even to leave the copy unsnipped, is not a way to disprove my logical arguments - far from it. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 12:42:55 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 12:42:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Maciej, be real. > What causes the confusion? The explanation that 4NT was Blackwood. All > the rest is just the same confusion. To say that it is reduced, OK, I'll > admit that. To add the word "significantly" is your own idea - I do not > agree. Ekhm, nay. After the auction - "sooorry guys, actually my 4NT was for minors, not Blackwood, his 5D didn't show one ace but better diamonds, ...". Now put yourself in the shoes of the defender. "What is right and what is wrong?". "What did they really show?". "What is systemic and what was bid mistakenly?" "Were his calls affected by UI or not?". Good player will probably overcome this difficulty. Lesser player can easily be confused and end up with the wrong answer. During the auction all will be revealed at once. Only the meaning of *one* call is corrected. The UI is obvious (often TD will warn the OS about it). The understanding of the future auction is obvious. I call this difference "significant". > > But Herman, there won't be any MI anymore. That's the crux of the matter. > > No Maciej, there will. There is at least one call made that was done > under MI. The TD needs to deal with that one. And since there is no > other, the opponents will say that they would not ... Call - yes, defensive play - no. You can redress possible damage in the auction, you can't redress damage in the play. And for me it will come quite often. Look at all the cases when after MI, even corrected, the NOS does something inferior. They are numerous. Because MI has a devious impact on the player's mind. Meckwell won't be confused, experts probably neither, but an average player can be. And he has no protection since the MI was corrected but the "damage" done to his state of mind is irreparable. > And indeed the MI is the crux of the matter - but only in your eyes is > MI the most important crime in the book. I don't agree, and the lawbook > neither. It's not a most important crime. But it's most often unadequately redressed. Go through different casebooks, see what is often said about the MI-hurted NOS ("they should cope with it", "they are seeking something they couldn't achieve at the table", "their arguments are self-serving", "they are whiners" etc). Yes, there is sometimes a seed of truth in those statements but the TDs, AC members and commentators forget about one thing - analyzing any deal "on paper", seeing all the hands, is something very different from playing at the table. Otherwise we would have thousands of Meckstroth's and Lauria's. At the table you are under the time pressure, in the middle of the competition, you have to be concentrated, you have only partial information, often you're uncertain that even obviously looking things are obvious. Even the champions sometimes make blunders which wouldn't be possible "on paper". That's why I consider MI the worst for the NOS. Most of the other infractions are resolved by mechanical rulings. And the UI is resolved only in connection to the OS actions, so it doesn't involve the NOS. > > That is not dependent on my playing career. My logic derives from the > > fundaments of bridge - no player is entitled to know the contents of the > > hand of any other player. > > That is rhetoric. I may not be entitled to know that he has one ace, but > I am entitled (IMO) that with 5Di he has shown one ace. To say that > since I am not entitled to the first, I should not be worried if I don't > get the second is completely devoid of any logic. Yeah. So why do you want to know that 5D showed one ace? From mere curiosity? No, you want to know that he has one ace. And you're not entitled to this knowledge. 5D was a misbid. The partnership do not have any agreements regarding the misbid. It would be even illegal. So they have nothing to disclose to you. Their misexplanation of 4NT was a gift for you - it caused UI to be present for them and you got to know that they're having a mixup. Demanding more gifts is for me classical "give him an inch and he'll take a yard". > I can find such reasons. Again, your logic is faulty. It is not because > you cannot find reasons for something to be like it is, that it is not > like it is. I bow to the logic of your statement. Would I only be able to understand it :-) > > They know about mixup, they know > > about pre-alerts, CC, sometimes about our methods, about most popular > > versions of Blackwood. Why should I reveal anything more? > > Because it is something they want to know? And who cares what they want? Many people want many things - that doesn't mean they should be given them. Please, give my example (with 2D opening) to any average player in Belgium. Ask him if after such an auction he's able to deduct what is going on. Ask him if it's necessary for him to be said explicitly - "3S was bid without spades". Then we can come back to our discussion. > > Maybe 1 ace is not > > so important but look at Bob's example - there your approach would > > automatically result in the top for the NOS without even making the opening > > lead. > > And a top for NOS has suddenly become a bad thing? No. But I'll explain why they don't deserve this top in comparison with many other players who are in an identical (or very similar) position. Imagine two different scenarios. A: 2D (natural, explained as such) - 3S (misbid, the player looked at the legs of the hostess and had a momentary mental lapse, he is aware of his system) - 3NT B: 2D (natural, misexplained as Multi) - 3S (intented as an asking for spade stopper, according to system - spades, strong) - 3NT In scenario A, after the auction, the full explanation is given - 2D natural, 3S - spades, 3NT - natural. Now the NOS won't probably lead spades and are fixed, there is no MI, no redress. They have no real chance to get it right. In scenario B, after the auction, the explanations are as above. But here the NOS already knows that 3S was a misbid, so they are better placed than the NOS from A. Additionally they can consult the CC (at least on WBF cards responses to Multi have to be disclosed). If Multi is not on CC (because it's not played by the opponents) they have their general knowledge - they can be aware what are standard responses to Multi. As you see the misbidder in A is mildly disadvantaged - only because of an inferior contract (but sometimes he'll gain if 3NT was the only game that makes or at matchpoints). Misbidder in B is already in an awful position. But he has a slight chance - he can accidentally have spades in his hand or the opponents can ignore the mixup and lead something else. You want to deprive him of this last chance and force him to tell what he really has in his hand. So for the sin of MI, which is corrected and irrelevant in this hand, you want to give B-misbidder cold zero automaticly, but A-misbidder gets to keep his lucky result, so his opponents are fixed although they did nothing wrong and didn't have any real chance to get it right. Do you really claim that it would be fair? Isn't it fair that the NOS in B has to do something, even the slightest mind activity, and that there should remain some function of luck, even the slightest, to deserve the better score than the NOS in A gets? 3S is a misbid in A and in B. The consequences of those misbids have to differ but there is no reason to add more punishment (and more gain) for the players in B because they are already worse (better) placed than in A. > Herman. Regards Maciej From jrhind at therock.bm Mon Dec 1 13:22:47 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 08:22:47 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 In-Reply-To: <000c01c94e2f$c6a8caf0$53fa60d0$@com> Message-ID: Yes please. Jack On 11/24/08 8:25 AM, "Picatou" wrote: > Hi all, > > I spent some nights trying to set a flow chart of the new Law 27 on one single > page and think I finally > succeeded, but I still have a question: > > 27B1(a) reads: if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest > sufficient???.. > the auction proceeds without further > rectification. > Law 16D does not apply, but see D below. > > 27B1(b) : If, except as in (a) above, the insufficient bid is corrected??????? > the auction proceeds without further > rectification, > but see D below. > > Does the fact that ?Law 16D does not apply? is not written in 27B1(b) means > something ? > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > PS: if some of you would like to see this flow chart, send me a private > message. The 2008 edition of > Laws of Duplicate bridge Made Easier is now ready for printing (French and > English versions) and I > will put the included flow charts (38) on my WEB as soon as possible. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081201/3a5ac07c/attachment.htm From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 1 13:37:07 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 07:37:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] A question In-Reply-To: <4933A346.9090002@skynet.be> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <001701c9534a$72f82480$58e86d80$@no> <4933A346.9090002@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:41:42 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran wrote: >> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............... >>> Do people agree with this? The player could not open 1C, so the >>> meaning of the 1C opening does not have to be divulged? Is that >>> what Sven meant when he said the answer was obvious? >> >> I simply pointed out that opponents are always entitled to a >> description of the partnership's 1C opening bid under Law 40A1 which >> applies on disclosures before play begins (commonly in the form of a >> CC), >> >> They are only entitled to such information under Law 20F1(which >> applies on questions during the auction) if the 1C opening bid was >> actually made or could have been made as an alternative to the actual >> call made. >> >> I also pointed out that the intended meaning of an illegal call that >> is withdrawn (for whatever reason) may only be assumed by opponents >> at their own risk. A 1C bid need not for instance necessarily show >> opening values, it can have been an unintended call where the >> intended call would have an even entirely different meaning. >> > > Surely you realise that this is irrelevant to the discussion. The > opponents may assume at their own risk that 1C was intended as an > opening, but in order to draw any inference from that assumption, they > need to know what 1C means as an opening. > So again, Sven, while what you say is right, your logic is wrong, and > your conclusion therefore faulty. > >> If the provided declaration (Law 40A1) did not include a description >> of a 1C opening bid then opponents are (subject to regulations) >> entitled to get such information at any time during the auction, but >> they are not entitled to any redress for damage if they mistakenly >> assume that the withdrawn 1C bid was an opening bid and in fact it >> was not. >> > > L40B2 has been written under the assumption that anything which the SO > does not consider important enough to require being put on a SC, can > still be asked about later on. The SC will write down regulations as to > what needs to be written on the SC with the same assumption. > To make the distinction that one can ask about the meaning of an > insufficient 1C opening, but not of the answers to Smithtown Blackwood, > based solely on their presence on a fully completed SC, is simply wrong. > That puts the whole structure on which SCs are based under too much > strain. A Smithtown Blackwood example would be 4NT 5S 5D/6H. The opps want to know the meaning of the impossible response of 5D. However, in this example, the information in the 5D is useless to partner, because partner is barred. In the first example, the information in the 1C bid is AI to partner and might be used. So, if players are not required to divulge information about calls that could not have occurred, you have the partner getting AI that the opps don't receive. I can't think of an example that combines both. However, partner is more likely than the opponents to know what the 1C bidder opens with 2 three-card minors or 2 four-card minors. That doesn't appear on the ACBL convention card. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 13:53:07 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 13:53:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be> <004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4933DE33.4030407@skynet.be> Aha! Bystry wrote: > > Agreed. But Bob's case was different from the dWS. The Laws do not > explicitly forbid giving additional information to the opponents, only 72A > may stand on your way (but it's nearly always unforceable in such cases). In > dWS you break 20F1 (because it's during the auction). > Aha - a new element. So you believe that L20F1 contains a limitation to the things that may be asked, while L20F2 contains no limitation at all? You believe that it was the intention of the lawmakers to limit the asking of irrelevant questions, but only during the auction, not during the play period? I happen to take a different stance on L20F1. Rather than limiting what can be asked, L20F1 ensures that everything that is relevant can be asked. Go back to the 1987 laws (which contained no such mention) and then to the 1997 laws (which included the "alternative calls not made"). It was because people read limitations in the laws that should not have been there, that the clarifications were issued. But rather than acccept these as clarification of what is meant by "all", people like yourself read new limitations in there. Remarkable. But even more remarkable is that the lawmakers agree with these limitations. The keepers of the laws agree that there can be things which are kept hidden from opponents. Anyway, if you believe that the mentions in L20F1 are limitations, and that those same limitations do not apply in L20F2, then you have just given a new meaning to the phrase "reading what is not there". Nest time I play against you, I shall, before leading, ask what your replies are to Stayman (of course unless you actually used Stayman in that auction, then I'll look for something else). If that is the interpretation you want to give to L20F1 and L20F2, so be it. Anyway, now that you've explained why for this question there is a difference between the auction period and the clarification period, I apologise for answering to the wrong question. But in my favour, I must say that even with this difference explained, my opinion on these matters remains the same, and this both during the auction and during the clarification period. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 13:56:24 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 13:56:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A516.30609@skynet.be><003101c9539c$f17a56a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933C07C.2000809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009301c953b4$37b99e20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > And refusing to comment, even to leave the copy unsnipped, is not a way > to disprove my logical arguments - far from it. Herman, it's impossible to disprove your arguments. But not because of the fact that they are logical. Because of the fact that you very strongly *believe* that they are logical. I can't force you to admit anything. I can only present my logic and leave it to the other readers to agree with it or not. Besides, sometimes we don't differ strictly in logic - we differ in starting assumptions. For me (I'd read this law much earlier then I heard about the controversy) "indicate" always meant something done on purpose (whether consciously or not) and directly pointing to something. A: Maciej indicates to Herman that he (Herman) forgot that he wanted to leave one hour earlier B: Maciej indicates to Herman that he (Herman) forgot that he promised his friend to visit him one hour earlier Both statements are clear examples of "indicate". In both cases the reason for Herman's supposed leaving is the same. So statement B is a subset of statement A, it's more specific. Statement B reveals the reason for leaving, statement A only the fact of a will to leave. So obviously B->A but to make A->B correct (rejecting A and B false) B has to be correct. And Maciej in A can be unaware of the reason of Herman's supposed leaving. What's more, even Herman may have forgotten this reason. C: To sum it up, by indicating to Herman that he forgot to leave, Maciej doesn't indicate to Herman that he was to visit his friend, although it's quite probable that Herman will now remeber why did he want to leave. Now we can go back to L20F5a. By explaining partner's call to the opponents, the player doesn't indicate to partner that his explanation was mistaken. That's only something partner will infer from the player's explanation, a side-effect of the explanation. As you can see I understand "indicate" as something direct and therefore logic leads me to believe that L20F5a didn't outlaw SE anytime. You can understand "indicate" as something relative, and logic will lead you to the different conclusion. Similar reasoning may be done for "relevant" (and other unclear things) although it would be more difficult. > Herman. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 14:12:28 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:12:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be> <005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Maciej, be real. >> What causes the confusion? The explanation that 4NT was Blackwood. All >> the rest is just the same confusion. To say that it is reduced, OK, I'll >> admit that. To add the word "significantly" is your own idea - I do not >> agree. > > Ekhm, nay. After the auction - "sooorry guys, actually my 4NT was for > minors, not Blackwood, his 5D didn't show one ace but better diamonds, ...". > Now put yourself in the shoes of the defender. "What is right and what is > wrong?". "What did they really show?". "What is systemic and what was bid > mistakenly?" "Were his calls affected by UI or not?". Good player will > probably overcome this difficulty. Lesser player can easily be confused and > end up with the wrong answer. > Aw, come on, Maciej. If you believe for one moment that any player can think the 5Di bidder has real diamonds, and any other number but one ace, then you are severely underestimating the powers of deduction of even the lowliest beginner. If someone explains 4NT as Blackwood and then bids 5Di, to think that he has done anything else than shown the number of aces he holds is beyond belief. And anyway, I cause no more confusion by explaining the diamond preference during the clarification period than you do during the auction. > During the auction all will be revealed at once. Only the meaning of *one* > call is corrected. The UI is obvious (often TD will warn the OS about it). > The understanding of the future auction is obvious. > > I call this difference "significant". > >>> But Herman, there won't be any MI anymore. That's the crux of the > matter. >> No Maciej, there will. There is at least one call made that was done >> under MI. The TD needs to deal with that one. And since there is no >> other, the opponents will say that they would not ... > > Call - yes, defensive play - no. Under neither system! > You can redress possible damage in the > auction, you can't redress damage in the play. But the redress will be during the clarification period. Or are you considering the NOS get to play the contract? Yes, in that case the damage can last, but the confusion you talk of has now dissappered altogether, since the correction will only come after the deal, and the only one who is confused is the Director. In fact, if confusion is an issue, the CE creates less confusion on average than the SE, since you need to take the cases into account where the NOS play the contract. Zero confusion there (and lots of MI - but UI in only one direction). > And for me it will come quite > often. Look at all the cases when after MI, even corrected, the NOS does > something inferior. They are numerous. Because MI has a devious impact on > the player's mind. Meckwell won't be confused, experts probably neither, but > an average player can be. And he has no protection since the MI was > corrected but the "damage" done to his state of mind is irreparable. > And this damage will be corrected by the TD. >> And indeed the MI is the crux of the matter - but only in your eyes is >> MI the most important crime in the book. I don't agree, and the lawbook >> neither. > > It's not a most important crime. But it's most often unadequately redressed. > Go through different casebooks, see what is often said about the MI-hurted > NOS ("they should cope with it", "they are seeking something they couldn't > achieve at the table", "their arguments are self-serving", "they are > whiners" etc). Yes, there is sometimes a seed of truth in those statements > but the TDs, AC members and commentators forget about one thing - analyzing > any deal "on paper", seeing all the hands, is something very different from > playing at the table. Otherwise we would have thousands of Meckstroth's and > Lauria's. At the table you are under the time pressure, in the middle of the > competition, you have to be concentrated, you have only partial information, > often you're uncertain that even obviously looking things are obvious. Even > the champions sometimes make blunders which wouldn't be possible "on paper". > But those arguments are also true about UI cases. And if you feel there is a quantitative difference between the two, then use that as an argument. But I feel like you're using this as a qualitative argument. And that is simply not true. > That's why I consider MI the worst for the NOS. Most of the other > infractions are resolved by mechanical rulings. And the UI is resolved only > in connection to the OS actions, so it doesn't involve the NOS. > That too is too simplistic. Whether it be an action by the NOS under MI or an action by the OS under UI restrictions, the TD still has to make an ethical decision. To say that one is easy and the other one hard is simply not true. You may believe MI decisions are hard and UI decisions are easy, I simply do not agree. And this brings up a separate point: MI rulings are difficult, yes, but the TD has the power to weigh the different options. UI rulings are in that respect even more difficult, since the ruling is black/white, always. Which again says to me that the WBF felt that UI is to be avoided at the cost of MI, not ther reverse. >>> That is not dependent on my playing career. My logic derives from the >>> fundaments of bridge - no player is entitled to know the contents of the >>> hand of any other player. >> That is rhetoric. I may not be entitled to know that he has one ace, but >> I am entitled (IMO) that with 5Di he has shown one ace. To say that >> since I am not entitled to the first, I should not be worried if I don't >> get the second is completely devoid of any logic. > > Yeah. So why do you want to know that 5D showed one ace? From mere > curiosity? No, you want to know that he has one ace. And you're not entitled > to this knowledge. 5D was a misbid. Ah, interesting point. Although I am entitled to know that 5Di shows one ace if the bidder thought 4NT was Blackwood (I still believe this), I am not entitled to know that the bidder thought 4NT was Blackwood. The fact that I know this does not mean it is my entitlement. If I'm behind screens and the 4NT bidder explains his bid as for the minors, then I am not entitled to the knowledge that his partner has 1 ace. You may just have convinced me of the correctness of the new interpretation! > The partnership do not have any > agreements regarding the misbid. It would be even illegal. So they have > nothing to disclose to you. Their misexplanation of 4NT was a gift for you - > it caused UI to be present for them and you got to know that they're having > a mixup. Demanding more gifts is for me classical "give him an inch and > he'll take a yard". > >> I can find such reasons. Again, your logic is faulty. It is not because >> you cannot find reasons for something to be like it is, that it is not >> like it is. > > I bow to the logic of your statement. Would I only be able to understand it > :-) > >>> They know about mixup, they know >>> about pre-alerts, CC, sometimes about our methods, about most popular >>> versions of Blackwood. Why should I reveal anything more? >> Because it is something they want to know? > > And who cares what they want? Many people want many things - that doesn't > mean they should be given them. Please, give my example (with 2D opening) to > any average player in Belgium. Ask him if after such an auction he's able to > deduct what is going on. Ask him if it's necessary for him to be said > explicitly - "3S was bid without spades". Then we can come back to our > discussion. > >>> Maybe 1 ace is not >>> so important but look at Bob's example - there your approach would >>> automatically result in the top for the NOS without even making the > opening >>> lead. >> And a top for NOS has suddenly become a bad thing? > > No. But I'll explain why they don't deserve this top in comparison with many > other players who are in an identical (or very similar) position. > > Imagine two different scenarios. > > A: 2D (natural, explained as such) - 3S (misbid, the player looked at the > legs of the hostess and had a momentary mental lapse, he is aware of his > system) - 3NT > > B: 2D (natural, misexplained as Multi) - 3S (intented as an asking for > spade stopper, according to system - spades, strong) - 3NT > > In scenario A, after the auction, the full explanation is given - 2D > natural, 3S - spades, 3NT - natural. Now the NOS won't probably lead spades > and are fixed, there is no MI, no redress. They have no real chance to get > it right. > > In scenario B, after the auction, the explanations are as above. But here > the NOS already knows that 3S was a misbid, so they are better placed than > the NOS from A. Additionally they can consult the CC (at least on WBF cards > responses to Multi have to be disclosed). If Multi is not on CC (because > it's not played by the opponents) they have their general knowledge - they > can be aware what are standard responses to Multi. > > As you see the misbidder in A is mildly disadvantaged - only because of an > inferior contract (but sometimes he'll gain if 3NT was the only game that > makes or at matchpoints). Misbidder in B is already in an awful position. > But he has a slight chance - he can accidentally have spades in his hand or > the opponents can ignore the mixup and lead something else. You want to > deprive him of this last chance and force him to tell what he really has in > his hand. > > So for the sin of MI, which is corrected and irrelevant in this hand, you > want to give B-misbidder cold zero automaticly, but A-misbidder gets to keep > his lucky result, so his opponents are fixed although they did nothing wrong > and didn't have any real chance to get it right. > > Do you really claim that it would be fair? Isn't it fair that the NOS in B > has to do something, even the slightest mind activity, and that there should > remain some function of luck, even the slightest, to deserve the better > score than the NOS in A gets? > > 3S is a misbid in A and in B. The consequences of those misbids have to > differ but there is no reason to add more punishment (and more gain) for the > players in B because they are already worse (better) placed than in A. > This example explains why you don't want to give the additional information, not why the opponents are not entitled to it. Your argument higher up is more convincing. In fact, I am probably convinced. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 14:41:51 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:41:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [snipped] > If I say that something is "acceptable" and you say it's an "infraction" > then we are talking at cross-purposes. > > Given these definitions. Do you agree that: > -SEs are infractions? No. > -SEs are acceptable? They are mandatory, not only accepted. > -CEs are infractions? Sure. > -CEs can be acceptable or outlawed? this is the only think we are > discussing. Nobody can force anybody to stop to give CE. It can (and should) only be punished. I'm not sure what do you mean by "outlawed". The murders are outlawed and yet they happen. So in this sense CEs are outlawed (if given *instead* of SEs, not additionally). > If you can accept that it is acceptable to give UI in order to avoid > giving MI, then why can you not imagine that it might be acceptable to > give MI in order to avoid giving UI? Because *giving* UI is not always an infraction. And *giving* UI do not result in direct damage. > Again, just words. If something contains a legal penalty (even if only > in the form of restricting partner from doing what he believes is the > correct bridge action), then I call it illegal. You calling it legal > does not make it so. O, yeah. So your act of "calling" something makes it true, but my act of "calling" something does not makes it true. Herman, your ego trip is infinite. Now wake up Herman and notice that, following your logic, hesitations are illegal because they result in, ekhm, "penalties" for the partner of the hesitator. Sorry, restrictions caused by UI are not "penalties" in a sense of bridge laws. > And again: SEs are not legal - L20F5a. Yeah, sure. And you think that the TD may give PP to anybody for correctly explaining the meaning of the call? I can bet that such decision would be the last one that the TD could make in his career. SEs are legal, more, they are *man-da-to-ry*. > You start from a quite wrong conception - that there is only one action > which is acceptable. No, Herman. The laws are clear - what is legal is acceptable, but what is illegal is unacceptable. You are juggling with notions to support some idiosyncratic conclusions. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 14:52:57 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:52:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be><004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933DE33.4030407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b601c953bc$1db30b80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Aha - a new element. > > So you believe that L20F1 contains a limitation to the things that may > be asked, while L20F2 contains no limitation at all? > You believe that it was the intention of the lawmakers to limit the > asking of irrelevant questions, but only during the auction, not during > the play period? No. That's what Bob was asking about. I always stated that the Laws do not require to disclose the agreements irrelevant to the auction - during the auction and during the play. The appropriate time is before the first board is played and during the whole board there is a SC available. So everything you wrote was under the misconception. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 15:06:57 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 15:06:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Aw, come on, Maciej. > If you believe for one moment that any player can think the 5Di bidder > has real diamonds, and any other number but one ace, then you are > severely underestimating the powers of deduction of even the lowliest > beginner. > If someone explains 4NT as Blackwood and then bids 5Di, to think that he > has done anything else than shown the number of aces he holds is beyond > belief. > > And anyway, I cause no more confusion by explaining the diamond > preference during the clarification period than you do during the auction. Herman, the bridge life doesn't consist only of your favourite example of 4NT. There will be auctions of 5-10 calls that would have to be misexplained according to dWS. You can't take the most simple case and conclude from it the whole scope of the problem. > > You can redress possible damage in the > > auction, you can't redress damage in the play. > > But the redress will be during the clarification period. ??? Redress != correction of misexplanations. > Or are you considering the NOS get to play the contract? No, when the NOS get to play the contract after the CEs, with high probability we can throw out the result at the start. Yes, redress will be given, no, the players won't be happy to play such a board. > > And for me it will come quite > > often. Look at all the cases when after MI, even corrected, the NOS does > > something inferior. They are numerous. Because MI has a devious impact on > > the player's mind. Meckwell won't be confused, experts probably neither, but > > an average player can be. And he has no protection since the MI was > > corrected but the "damage" done to his state of mind is irreparable. > > > > And this damage will be corrected by the TD. ??? How? The MI was corrected. What can TD do? Adjust the score without the infraction? > > It's not a most important crime. But it's most often unadequately redressed. > > Go through different casebooks, see what is often said about the MI-hurted > > NOS ("they should cope with it", "they are seeking something they couldn't > > achieve at the table", "their arguments are self-serving", "they are > > whiners" etc). Yes, there is sometimes a seed of truth in those statements > > but the TDs, AC members and commentators forget about one thing - analyzing > > any deal "on paper", seeing all the hands, is something very different from > > playing at the table. Otherwise we would have thousands of Meckstroth's and > > Lauria's. At the table you are under the time pressure, in the middle of the > > competition, you have to be concentrated, you have only partial information, > > often you're uncertain that even obviously looking things are obvious. Even > > the champions sometimes make blunders which wouldn't be possible "on paper". > > > > But those arguments are also true about UI cases. > And if you feel there is a quantitative difference between the two, then > use that as an argument. But I feel like you're using this as a > qualitative argument. And that is simply not true. How are those arguments connected to UI? Herman, what are you talking about? The UI has no direct impact on the NOS. Yes, the OS could use it to reach the better contract but it will be taken back by the TD, without the problems for the NOS. And if it won't, then there was no infraction and they are not due any redress. > That too is too simplistic. Whether it be an action by the NOS under MI > or an action by the OS under UI restrictions, the TD still has to make > an ethical decision. To say that one is easy and the other one hard is > simply not true. You may believe MI decisions are hard and UI decisions > are easy, I simply do not agree. Herman, I repeat for the umpthiest time - *I don't care for the amount of TD's work*. Is there any chance you will understand that? I care only for the NOS - they did nothing wrong and should spend their free time as they wish. The OS infracted the Laws and the TD is paid for his job. They can be forced to work as long as necessary. > Herman. Regards Maciej From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 1 15:39:27 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:39:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000001c953c2$9d02d860$d7088920$@com> A thought experiment: You are playing with screens. LHO opens 1S, and the tray is passed. It returns with 4NT by partner, and a pass to the right. But on the tray is a small piece of paper - obviously, partner has written down his explanation of 4NT for his LHO's benefit, and the paper has absent-mindedly been left on the tray after being read. Both you and your screen-mate can see that the paper says "4NT = Blackwood". In fact, 4NT shows the minors - a fact that you happen to have written on your convention card, but partner has forgotten. You are 100% certain, however, that your system is "minors" and not "Blackwood". Now, what is your duty under the Laws? Do you explain to your LHO that 4NT is in fact minors and that your 5D bid is preference? If he asks you what your responses to Blackwood are, may you say "It isn't relevant - 4NT isn't Blackwood, and I am not replying to it as such?" The answers to these questions are obviously "yes" and "yes". But for Herman, they are "no, because that indicates in some manner that a mistake has been made and is a breach of Law 20F5a" and "no, because your opponent has a right to know your system". And yet Herman seems to believe that he has logic on his side. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 1 16:24:45 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:24:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000001c953c2$9d02d860$d7088920$@com> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c953c2$9d02d860$d7088920$@com> Message-ID: <000801c953c8$f0f60770$d2e21650$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > A thought experiment: > > You are playing with screens. LHO opens 1S, and the tray is passed. It > returns with 4NT by partner, and a pass to the right. But on the tray is a > small piece of paper - obviously, partner has written down his explanation > of 4NT for his LHO's benefit, and the paper has absent-mindedly been left on > the tray after being read. > > Both you and your screen-mate can see that the paper says "4NT = Blackwood". > In fact, 4NT shows the minors - a fact that you happen to have written on > your convention card, but partner has forgotten. You are 100% certain, > however, that your system is "minors" and not "Blackwood". > > Now, what is your duty under the Laws? What is the problem? Your duty is to summon the Director and explain the situation. > Do you explain to your LHO that 4NT > is in fact minors and that your 5D bid is preference? If he asks you what > your responses to Blackwood are, may you say "It isn't relevant - 4NT isn't > Blackwood, and I am not replying to it as such?" Yes to both questions (unless the Director instructs you to act otherwise). > > The answers to these questions are obviously "yes" and "yes". (snip) > David Burn We agree completely (I hope you too would call the Director?) Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 16:47:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:47:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4934072B.2020800@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > > [snipped] > >> If I say that something is "acceptable" and you say it's an "infraction" >> then we are talking at cross-purposes. >> >> Given these definitions. Do you agree that: >> -SEs are infractions? > > No. > All the rest can be snipped, if this is the start. We clearly have a different opinion of what constitutes an infraction. First of all, there is the simple fact that L20F5a has not been scrapped from the lawbook. There is no exception to this law, and it says that a player should do nothing that "in any manner" indicates that a mistake has been made. OK? If you feel that this law has not been broken, then we are on a very wrong track. Secondly, there is the misconception that giving UI is not an infraction. Just take L73A and L73B if you believe that the giving of UI is not an infraction. Thirdly there is the argument that anything that contains a penalty must be called an infraction. If you continue to believe that the penalty is in the making use of UI and not in the giving of UI, then I ask you why you have gotten that bad score last night when you, correctly, decided not to bid on after your partner's hesitation. If that bad score is not a penalty for him giving you UI, then I don't know what it is. To continue to say, in the light of all this, that giving an SE is not an infraction is to work on your own definitions rather than those of everyone else. Under your own definitions, it is easy to win any contest of logic. And yes, I am working under my own definitions too. But I give you those definitions, and you are free to discuss that they are wrong. My definition of an infraction is anything that is not fully within the laws, and for which a penalty is warranted. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 16:49:25 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:49:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49340785.9020409@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > >> If you can accept that it is acceptable to give UI in order to avoid >> giving MI, then why can you not imagine that it might be acceptable to >> give MI in order to avoid giving UI? > > Because *giving* UI is not always an infraction. And *giving* UI do not > result in direct damage. > Again, wrong. Giving UI does result in damage. To say that it does not result in direct damage is sophistry. It results in damage. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 16:53:54 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:53:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49340892.3000502@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > Now wake up Herman and notice that, following your logic, hesitations are > illegal because they result in, ekhm, "penalties" for the partner of the > hesitator. > Indeed they are. By L73A1 and L73B1. > Sorry, restrictions caused by UI are not "penalties" in a sense of bridge > laws. > And I want to call anything that limits my score a penalty. Partner shows a card, and declarer forbids me to play that suit. The card is picked up but I must play some other suit. Is that a penalty or not? Well, maybe you don't want to call it a penalty. Call it something else then. Anyway, that something else means that we are restricted, and that in turn means that the penalty card is "penalized". In the same way the giving of UI (both the ones which are accepted and those that are outlawed) restricts the pairs' choices and are "penalized". Call it something else if you want, but don't call it legal. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 17:02:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:02:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49340AAC.8000009@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > Sorry, restrictions caused by UI are not "penalties" in a sense of bridge > laws. > >> And again: SEs are not legal - L20F5a. > > Yeah, sure. And you think that the TD may give PP to anybody for correctly > explaining the meaning of the call? I can bet that such decision would be > the last one that the TD could make in his career. SEs are legal, more, they > are *man-da-to-ry*. > Again, leaps of logic here. SEs are not legal. But they are accepted. I explained the two concepts, and the difference between them. Things that are not legal carry penalties, as does the giving of SEs - in the form of UI restrictions. Only things that are not acceptable can lead to PPs. I call giving SEs acceptable, and so there are no PPs for them. So your sentence above contains *only* three errors. 1) SEs are *not* legal 2) Some things that are not legal can not lead to PPs, because they are acceptable, so my statement that they are illegal does *not* logically equate with me awarding PPs for them. 3) to say that they are mandatory is a logical leap of the highest order. You have -correctly- said that they are acceptable (and I have never stated that they weren't), but as I said, more than one action can be acceptable. To say that an accepted action is mandatory requires proof that the opposing action is outlawed. You have not provided any such argument, so your statement that SEs are mandatory is based on nothing but your own conviction. I have stated all my arguments in a logical manner. You have done nothing but repeat your previous false logic and unfounded statements. Yet you continue to paint this exchange as a symetric one, with both of us acting in the same manner. >> You start from a quite wrong conception - that there is only one action >> which is acceptable. > > No, Herman. The laws are clear - what is legal is acceptable, but what is > illegal is unacceptable. You are juggling with notions to support some > idiosyncratic conclusions. > No Maciej, when two opposing actions are both illegal, at least one illegal action must be deemed acceptable. Pure logic. And when you say the laws are clear, that too is an unfounded statement which clearly is untrue. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 17:13:11 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:13:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000001c953c2$9d02d860$d7088920$@com> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c953c2$9d02d860$d7088920$@com> Message-ID: <49340D17.9070505@skynet.be> David, please don't ascribe to me answers if I haven't even been allowed to read the question. David Burn wrote: > A thought experiment: > > You are playing with screens. LHO opens 1S, and the tray is passed. It > returns with 4NT by partner, and a pass to the right. But on the tray is a > small piece of paper - obviously, partner has written down his explanation > of 4NT for his LHO's benefit, and the paper has absent-mindedly been left on > the tray after being read. > > Both you and your screen-mate can see that the paper says "4NT = Blackwood". > In fact, 4NT shows the minors - a fact that you happen to have written on > your convention card, but partner has forgotten. You are 100% certain, > however, that your system is "minors" and not "Blackwood". > And you are of course an ethical player who will act as such and not a cheat who will try to hide his SC and maintain that 4NT was Blackwood all along - very easy to do, but of course highly illegal - and not an action I would condone for even one micro-second, I hope you trust me on that. > Now, what is your duty under the Laws? Do you explain to your LHO that 4NT > is in fact minors and that your 5D bid is preference? Of course you do - what else? > If he asks you what > your responses to Blackwood are, may you say "It isn't relevant - 4NT isn't > Blackwood, and I am not replying to it as such?" > Well, I have just changed my opinion on this, but it isn't relevant here. Since I will be showing my diamond preference, my LHO will not care how many aces I have. I may of course tell him that, so that he knows how many aces my partner has when he bids seven. But I grant that the answer to this question may be *yes*. > The answers to these questions are obviously "yes" and "yes". I hate it when someone writes "obviously". Obviously nothing is obvious on blml. > But for > Herman, they are "no, because that indicates in some manner that a mistake > has been made and is a breach of Law 20F5a" No it doesn't. Well, it doesn't indicate it as such to partner (unless we also let our written explanations on the tray). Of course L20F5a does not mention to whom it is indicated, but then it cannot harm to tell more to opponents than to partner. > and "no, because your opponent > has a right to know your system". And yet Herman seems to believe that he > has logic on his side. > And what has this got to do with logic? You suppose (erroneously, but that's not the point) that my answers are different from yours, and this somehow means that MY logic is wrong? Of course the great David Burn could not possibly be wrong. Does this post strike anyone else as Herman bashing of the worst kind? Not only does David ascribe to me a different opinion to his (wrongly so, as it turns out), but he also has the gall to call me wrong simply because I would have a different opinion. I hope we can keep this list civilsed. It's very hard. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 17:23:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:23:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <009301c953b4$37b99e20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A516.30609@skynet.be><003101c9539c$f17a56a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933C07C.2000809@skynet.be> <009301c953b4$37b99e20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49340F72.9090505@skynet.be> Hello Maciej, Bystry wrote: > > Besides, sometimes we don't differ strictly in logic - we differ in starting > assumptions. For me (I'd read this law much earlier then I heard about the > controversy) "indicate" always meant something done on purpose (whether > consciously or not) and directly pointing to something. > Please don't start this discussion again. The word indicate means what it means. To make it mean what you ascribe to it in order to win an argument that says something is allowed when it clearly isn't is not the way to move forward. And besides, if you give a SE, you do so on purpose. Not because the law tells you to, but because you decide to follow that law. You act purposely. And even many non-purposeful acts will be deemed "indicate". This really is not a way forward. It's a step back. > A: Maciej indicates to Herman that he (Herman) forgot that he wanted to > leave one hour earlier > B: Maciej indicates to Herman that he (Herman) forgot that he promised his > friend to visit him one hour earlier > > Both statements are clear examples of "indicate". In both cases the reason > for Herman's supposed leaving is the same. So statement B is a subset of > statement A, it's more specific. Statement B reveals the reason for leaving, > statement A only the fact of a will to leave. So obviously B->A but to make > A->B correct (rejecting A and B false) B has to be correct. And Maciej in A > can be unaware of the reason of Herman's supposed leaving. What's more, even > Herman may have forgotten this reason. > Poppycock. If you look at your watch, that may indicate to me that I forgot to so something. Look Maciej, neither of us is a native English speaker. In Dutch, it says "laten blijken", which is not a literal translation, as it has become passive. I urge you to look up the Polish and think about the translation. If you really believe that the lawmakers have spent 10 years looking at words like "indicate" and leave it in because they feel that it correctly describes what they want, then I let you believe that. But as an argument, it is lousy. Furthermore - think of the "in any manner". > C: To sum it up, by indicating to Herman that he forgot to leave, Maciej > doesn't indicate to Herman that he was to visit his friend, although it's > quite probable that Herman will now remeber why did he want to leave. > > Now we can go back to L20F5a. By explaining partner's call to the opponents, > the player doesn't indicate to partner that his explanation was mistaken. > That's only something partner will infer from the player's explanation, a > side-effect of the explanation. > So if he points to his temple (indicating partner is crazy) that too does not indicate that anything was wrong with the explanation, it is merely a side-effect? > As you can see I understand "indicate" as something direct and therefore > logic leads me to believe that L20F5a didn't outlaw SE anytime. You can > understand "indicate" as something relative, and logic will lead you to the > different conclusion. > Sorry Maciej, very bad logic. > Similar reasoning may be done for "relevant" (and other unclear things) > although it would be more difficult. > >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > If you redefine every word to make it mean what you think it means, then you can prove everything. I define the word five as meaning four, therefor two plus two equals five. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 1 17:33:04 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:33:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be> <00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Aw, come on, Maciej. >> If you believe for one moment that any player can think the 5Di bidder >> has real diamonds, and any other number but one ace, then you are >> severely underestimating the powers of deduction of even the lowliest >> beginner. >> If someone explains 4NT as Blackwood and then bids 5Di, to think that he >> has done anything else than shown the number of aces he holds is beyond >> belief. >> >> And anyway, I cause no more confusion by explaining the diamond >> preference during the clarification period than you do during the auction. > > Herman, the bridge life doesn't consist only of your favourite example of > 4NT. There will be auctions of 5-10 calls that would have to be misexplained > according to dWS. You can't take the most simple case and conclude from it > the whole scope of the problem. > And who says I cannot misexplain 10 calls in one auction? I urge one of our Richard to come up with a symmetrical relay auction (details available on request) which has a totally different meaning when the first call is misexplained. I see no problem with the partner bidding 5 times according to the real meaning, and giving 5 totally different explanations according to the meaning his partner has obviously given to the auction. Might be fun to see when partner realises it has become impossible. >>> You can redress possible damage in the >>> auction, you can't redress damage in the play. >> But the redress will be during the clarification period. > > ??? Redress != correction of misexplanations. > >> Or are you considering the NOS get to play the contract? > > No, when the NOS get to play the contract after the CEs, with high > probability we can throw out the result at the start. Yes, redress will be > given, no, the players won't be happy to play such a board. > Unless the NOS get to play the contract, there can be no damage in the play, since all MI will be rectified before the lead (unless the OS commit a secondary infraction by not correcting at this point - which we do not assume). >>> And for me it will come quite >>> often. Look at all the cases when after MI, even corrected, the NOS does >>> something inferior. They are numerous. Because MI has a devious impact > on >>> the player's mind. Meckwell won't be confused, experts probably neither, > but >>> an average player can be. And he has no protection since the MI was >>> corrected but the "damage" done to his state of mind is irreparable. >>> >> And this damage will be corrected by the TD. > > ??? How? The MI was corrected. What can TD do? Adjust the score without the > infraction? > But isn't that the case with any MI? Why should it be greater with DWS? >>> It's not a most important crime. But it's most often unadequately > redressed. >>> Go through different casebooks, see what is often said about the > MI-hurted >>> NOS ("they should cope with it", "they are seeking something they > couldn't >>> achieve at the table", "their arguments are self-serving", "they are >>> whiners" etc). Yes, there is sometimes a seed of truth in those > statements >>> but the TDs, AC members and commentators forget about one thing - > analyzing >>> any deal "on paper", seeing all the hands, is something very different > from >>> playing at the table. Otherwise we would have thousands of Meckstroth's > and >>> Lauria's. At the table you are under the time pressure, in the middle of > the >>> competition, you have to be concentrated, you have only partial > information, >>> often you're uncertain that even obviously looking things are obvious. > Even >>> the champions sometimes make blunders which wouldn't be possible "on > paper". >> But those arguments are also true about UI cases. >> And if you feel there is a quantitative difference between the two, then >> use that as an argument. But I feel like you're using this as a >> qualitative argument. And that is simply not true. > > How are those arguments connected to UI? Herman, what are you talking about? > The UI has no direct impact on the NOS. Yes, the OS could use it to reach > the better contract but it will be taken back by the TD, without the > problems for the NOS. And if it won't, then there was no infraction and they > are not due any redress. > Maciej, what are you talking about? I don't know any more. I thought you were talking about TD problems being larger in one system than another. That simply is not true. Other than that, I have no idea what you are talking about. >> That too is too simplistic. Whether it be an action by the NOS under MI >> or an action by the OS under UI restrictions, the TD still has to make >> an ethical decision. To say that one is easy and the other one hard is >> simply not true. You may believe MI decisions are hard and UI decisions >> are easy, I simply do not agree. > > Herman, I repeat for the umpthiest time - *I don't care for the amount of > TD's work*. Is there any chance you will understand that? Since it is my opinion too, why should I have any problem with understanding that. But your posts seemed to say differently. > I care only for > the NOS - they did nothing wrong and should spend their free time as they > wish. The OS infracted the Laws and the TD is paid for his job. They can be > forced to work as long as necessary. > So? what is your point? If anything is misexplained we just allow the NOS to leave the table and not think anymore? If you believe this then you should argue to get L20F5a changed. In the legal system that includes L20F5a the unfortunate happenings you describe above are sadly present, and the TD may sometimes fail to give the NOS all the redress they need. But that is an argument against the current legal system, not against the DWS. And it's not fair of you to condemn the DWS only by saying that you cannot change L20F5a. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > > Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 1 19:04:09 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 18:04:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <49340D17.9070505@skynet.be> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339F44.8000500@skynet.be><001c01c9539a$694b95c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933BFCD.3020403@skynet.be> <00a801c953ba$90fa1220$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c953c2$9d02d860$d7088920$@com> <49340D17.9070505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000401c953df$36177850$a24668f0$@com> [DALB, in a context where screens are in use so that partner cannot hear your explanation] Do you explain to your LHO that 4NT is in fact minors and that your 5D bid is preference? [HdW] Of course you do - what else? [DALB] ...because that indicates in some manner that a mistake has been made [HdW] No it doesn't. Well, it doesn't indicate it as such to partner... [DALB] Now, this is the same logical Herman who for more than a decade has been insisting that anything that indicates in some manner that a mistake has been made is in breach of Law 20F5a. Here, he says that because the indication is not perceived by partner, it is not an indication that a mistake has been made. We may be making some progress, but only very slow progress. Do you now concede, Herman, that an indication that partner has made a mistake is not a breach of Law if partner is not aware of the indication? David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 1 20:13:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:13:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be> <001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <37A38910-A516-422A-8E16-9AEF166FCCDC@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2008, at 7:44 AM, Bystry wrote: >> What I find remarkable is that the same people who believe that MI >> is a >> worse crime than giving UI, would also believe that there can be >> something that players know about their system but are _not_ >> required to >> tell their opponents. > > Maybe because that "something" is *not what the players know about > their > system*? Herman, I really advise you to take some logic lessons. > There is > *only one system* that the partnership is playing, not two at the > same time. > *No* call can't be explained in rending of the actual auction. 3S > in the > auction 1S-pass-3S means something else than in the acution 1H- > pass-3S. So > if in the first case your opponent asks about 3S and you answer "3S is > preemtive", in effect you answer "3S *in response to 1S* is > preemptive", not > that 3S is defined absolutely. > > Now apply this logic to your favorite 4NT example. Yes, in some > auctions 5D > means "one ace", but in this one, 1S-4NT-pass-5D, *it means "diamond > preference"*. You are not allowed by the Laws to have two, different, > meanings for this call in the same sequence (it could only mean > something > else if 1S meant something different). There is nothing like "4NT - > Blackwood" in rending of the specific auction. 4NT - Blackwood is a > convention but it has its real, bridge meaning only when specific > partnership agrees to use it in specific auctions (even if defined > by some > meta-rules). > > So, yes, your opponents are entitled to know all your methods but > the Laws > specify the means of disclosing those methods (precisely this is > left to the > Regulating Authorities). And the Laws state that the players are *not > entitled* to inquire about methods not related to the actual > auction *during > the auction and play period*. At this time the only source of the > unrelated > information may be System Card (CC). Read 40A1(b), 40B2(a), 40B2 > (c), 20F1, > 20F2. There is an alternative way of looking at this. L40A1(b) imposes "a duty to make available its partnership understandings... before commencing play". It requires the RA to "specif[y] the manner in which this shall be done". It does not, however, give the RA the authority to abrogate this obigatory duty altogether. So if an RA fails to provide a mechanism for providing the required disclosure "before commencing play", that cannot mean that the disclosure is no longer required; it can only mean that the timing of the disclosure has been loosened to allow for it being given only if it turns out to be needed. It makes no sense to me to say that I have the absolute right to know what my opponents' Blackwood responses mean if I ask them before the auction starts (which is what L40A1(b) quite clearly says), but lose the right to ask if I allow the auction to begin without having anticipated that I might want to know about that (or any other!) particular aspect of their system. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 1 20:25:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:25:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Bystry wrote: >> But that is precisely where we differ in opinion. How can Balckwood >> responses (for a pair who do actually play Blackwood, even if not >> in the >> present situation) be *NOT a part of ... experience*? > > [L40B6(a)] > > When explaining the significance of partner's ***call***or play in > reply > to opponent's enquiry ***(see Law 20)*** a player shall disclose all > ***special > information*** conveyed to him through partnership agreement or > partnership > experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his > knowledge and > experience of matters generally known to bridge players. > > [L20F1] > > During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, > but only at his own turn to call, an explanation of the opponents' > prior > auction. He is entitled to know about ***calls actually made***, about > ***relevant*** > alternative calls available that were not made, and about > ***relevant*** > inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of > ***partnership > understanding***. Except on the instruction of the Director replies > should > be > given by the partner of the player who made the call in question. The > partner of a player who asks a question may not ask a supplementary > question until his turn to call or play. Law 16 may apply and the > Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written > explanations. > > Call actually made - 5D in a sequence 1S-4NT-pas-5D. Partnership > agreement - > better diamonds. Relevant alternative calls - e.g. 5C - better clubs. > Relevant inferences - partner doesn't have a good hand, otherwise > he could > bid 6D. Special information - partner, having 3-3 in minors, tends > to bid > clubs too often although our agreement is bidding the better of the > suits. > > What you are doing is misusing the clear, obvious, logical > definitions to > suit your idiosyncratic ideas. 4NT Blackwood is *not relevant* to this > auction. The special information conveyed to somebody through > partnership > experience *has to be connected* to the questioned call, 5D. E.g. > you should > disclose that partner is prone to forget that with xxx Kxx he > should bid 5D, > not 5C (here it doesn't matter but after 5C response it could be > important > for the defenders). *That* is partnership experience regarding the > chosen > call, not the fact that your partnership plays Blackwood or Burkina > Faso > Convention or Multi in other auctions. > > The auction consists of calls, *not* of explanations. The Laws > require you > to give correct explanations of *the* calls in *the* auction, not > any calls > in any auctions. Misexplantion "4NT is Blackwood" is extraneous to the > auction and has nothing in common with "correct explanations of *the* > calls". And this misexplantion *do not* create a new auction, nor a > new > system. So nothing has to be explained which is connected with the > misexplanation. The Laws require you to "make available [your] partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them" [L40A1(b)]. What you are capable of explaining "before commencing play" does not depend on "*the* calls in *the* auction". You are not excused from fulfilling this explicit "duty" just because your opponents permitted the auction to start before realizing they would want some particular piece of the totality to the information to which L40A1(b) unamibiguously entitles them. "The RA specifies the manner in which this shall be done" does *not* mean that the RA may specify (implicitly or otherwise) that it not be done at all. > For me the logic is so simple that I have really very hard times to > explain > it to you. Maybe it would require spoken words, common mother > language, > manual demonstration, I don't know. All I know that it's the last > time I'm > trying to explain it. If you want to remain stubborn and continue > to claim > logical heresy, suit yourself. I'm washing my hands. > >> Herman. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 1 20:58:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:58:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Nov 30, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Bystry wrote: >> Another possibility is that the WBFLC was resolving a conflict >> between >> laws. This would imply that Law 20 does seem to require the >> divulgence of >> this information and that the WBFLC was opining that other laws took >> precedence. But then you are back to Law 20 at least suggesting >> that the >> information about Smithtown Blackwood has to be divulged. > > It doesn't suggest anything. Bob, try this. There is an auction: > 2NT-pass-3H > (transfer)-pass-3S. Now the opponent asks at his turn: "what would > 3S mean > in an auction 2NT-pass-3H (natural)-pass-3S?". Answer for yourself > - are the > players obliged to give an answer to such question? Read the Laws, > think > about it and answer. If the answer is a matter of partnership agreement, it must be divulged. If it is not a matter of partnership agreement, there is nothing to divulge. It is legitimate to reply, "We do not play 3H natural in reply to 2NT, and have no agreement as to what it would mean if we did" -- but only if that it the truth! But that is not analogous to Herman's or Bob's Blackwood examples. That would be the case if you played (silly example alert) 3H as a transfer non-vul but natural vul. In that case, it would be unacceptable to reply, "We only have an agreement about replying to 3H natural when vulnerable, and we are not vulnerable, so I don't have to tell you anything now; if you want to know what our agreement is ask us when we're vulnerable." > If your answer is "no" (as I hope) then tell me why should anybody be > obliged to answer the question "what would 5D mean if 4NT was > Blackwood > instead of minors?" Because they are obigated to describe their partnership understandings, and -- unlike in Maciej's transfer example -- the answer is to be found among their partnership understandings. >> Bob Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Dec 1 21:12:13 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:12:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Herman bashing and civility Message-ID: <4934451D.9010900@aol.com> Hola blmlers! In a recent posting, in response to a posting of David B., Herman speaks of "Herman bashing" and his hope that the level of the postings could be kept civil, or polite, (or something like that -- I have deleted the email). Have I missed something or does incivility only occur in postings to or from Herman? And it is curious that there seems to be only "Herman bashing" and no one else is ever bashed. Any explanations for these apparent phenomena? JE From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 1 21:16:56 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:16:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Herman_bashing_and_civility?= In-Reply-To: <4934451D.9010900@aol.com> References: <4934451D.9010900@aol.com> Message-ID: <1L7FCS-1R7UkC0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: Jeff Easterson > Hola blmlers! ?In a recent posting, in response to a posting of David > B., Herman speaks of "Herman bashing" and his hope that the level of > the postings could be kept civil, or polite, (or something like that > -- I have deleted the email). > Have I missed something or does incivility only occur in postings to > or from Herman? ?And it is curious that there seems to be only "Herman > bashing" and no one else is ever bashed. ?Any explanations for these > apparent phenomena? ?JE coincidence, pure coincidence !! From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 1 22:32:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:32:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c9530d$214833b0$63d89b10$@no> Message-ID: <2C43496E-9090-4647-B51B-54AB0ADF4DA4@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ........... >> So, it seems obvious to me, the issue hinges on relevant. > > Sure: If a player during the auction could request explanation on > "calls not > made" he could request complete information on the opening bid of > 1NT in the > Vienna system even from a partnership that had never heard of > Vienna, and he > could request complete information from a partnership using the > strong club > system (e.g. Precision) on a one club opening bid even after a > preemptive > opening bid of three clubs. > > The addition of the word "relevant" limits the range of calls for > which an > explanation can be requested during the auction to such calls that > could > have been used in the actual situation when a player had selected a > different call. Law 20F1 does not open any door for requesting general > bridge lessons. > > So explanations of 4NT Blackwood (and the systemic answers to this > bid) can > only be requested after a situation in which 4NT Blackwood was > available to > the player. This has obviously not been the case when 4NT was a > request for > preference in minors whatever partner to the 4NT bidder explained. > > A separate issue is that opponents are entitled to disclosure of > partnership > understandings before play begins as specified in Law 40A1(b), but > this is > an entirely different matter. if we consider the "separate" requirements of L40A1(b) to be truly "an entirely different matter", then the only thing we could do in the problematic situation is to rule that the asking side has *already* been potentially damaged by their opponents' failure to "make available its partnership understandings before commencing play" -- the asking side would be patently better off knowing the answer, and this is likely to affect the result -- direct that play continue without the information being given, then adjust the result if it affected the outcome adversely to the putative NOS. If we are willing to consider that "the RA specif[ying] the manner in which this shall be done" may (perhaps implicitly) choose to treat L40A1(b) and L20F1 as other than "entirely different matter[s]", then we can rule "just answer the question", which creates no putative OS, no infraction, no damage, no potential adjustment after the hand, and we get to play our bridge at the table. I personally would prefer the latter. The "relevance" requirement in L20F1 obviously addresses the relevance of partnership agreements to the meaning of a particular call. Logically and semantically, it could also refer to the relevance of that particular call in formulating "an explanation of the... prior auction", but I see no reason to infer the additional second meaning when the first is obvious in either case, and when the resulting inference would create an apparent, unnecessary conflict with L40A1(b)). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 22:41:51 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> Sorry Herman, I give up. I've got more pleasant things to do than for the n-th time read your typical statements "you're wrong", "your logic is false", "very bad logic", "my logic is pure" etc. Think what you want, I don't care. Our discussion about the dWS or CEs are definitely finished. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 1 22:48:54 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 16:48:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be> <005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <8ECA66B6-EDCF-4781-9A6D-B24CBC77E77B@starpower.net> On Nov 30, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Bystry wrote: > That is not dependent on my playing career. My logic derives from the > fundaments of bridge - no player is entitled to know the contents > of the > hand of any other player. So I can't find any reason to tell to the > opponents how many Aces are shown by 5D. Excuse me? They have asked you what your partnership agreement is regarding a 5D response to Blackwood. That is a question they could have asked and you could have answered over the telephone before either you or they showed up at the bridge site, much less before any of you had held a hand containing any number of aces It is solely a question about your agreements. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of anybody's hand. > They know about mixup, they know > about pre-alerts, CC, sometimes about our methods, about most popular > versions of Blackwood. Why should I reveal anything more? Because the request was for you to disclose one of your "partnership understandings", which you "ha[ve] a duty to make available... to opponents" by law. > Maybe 1 ace is not > so important but look at Bob's example - there your approach would > automatically result in the top for the NOS without even making the > opening > lead. > > Yes, it may seem inconsistent with my approach (all the worst for > the OS) > but I still want bridge to be played and without any, even the > smallest, > risk the game is played in open hands and that I can't approve of. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 23:09:39 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:09:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > The Laws require you to "make available [your] partnership > understandings to opponents before commencing play against > them" [L40A1(b)]. What you are capable of explaining "before > commencing play" does not depend on "*the* calls in *the* auction". > You are not excused from fulfilling this explicit "duty" just because > your opponents permitted the auction to start before realizing they > would want some particular piece of the totality to the information > to which L40A1(b) unamibiguously entitles them. "The RA specifies > the manner in which this shall be done" does *not* mean that the RA > may specify (implicitly or otherwise) that it not be done at all. Sorry Eric, but I don't know what are you talking about. Do you accuse me of hiding any information from my opponents? Do you know anything about my way of playing bridge to risk such statements? I'm fulfilling any obligations the Laws put on me. On my CC are all the agreements that are important. Of course *everything* can't be disclosed that way. So I explain anything which is *relevant* to the actual auction. But I don't have any obligation to disclose anything during the auction/play which is irrelevant to it. If you think that I have to disclose what kind of Blackwood does my partnership use during the auction in which Blackwood wasn't bid, then show me the Law that forces me to do it. L40A1(b) says only about disclosing *before commencing play*. L20F1 says what has to be disclosed during the auction. I know from your historical emails that you are a fanatic of full disclosure. I agree that it's very important. But it shouldn't override any other important things or common sense. Allowing the players to ask during the auction about irrelevant things would result in a total mess. Think about it - Blackwood can be played by my partnership in different ways depending on different auctions. Do I have to disclose it all? Do I have to spend 2 minutes during the auction to say something which is completely unnecesary? Only because my opponents have a whim? No, I don't think so and the lawmakers didn't think so either. Full disclosure, as understood by some people, would sometimes lead to worse things than hiding something. E.g. I see no sense in explaining that partner forgot one sequence two months ago. It can only boggle opponents' minds. They will risk some action dependent on the hypotetical forget in present (thinking that I must have a reason to say something about it) and they will get a poor score. And although I wouldn't break any law this way I would feel morally responsible for their debacle. As in every case in our world, moderation is required with the concept of full disclosure. It shouldn't become a tool to mislead anybody or to satisfy somebody's whim. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 23:23:07 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:23:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred><493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <37A38910-A516-422A-8E16-9AEF166FCCDC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <003b01c95403$62c3bd40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > There is an alternative way of looking at this. L40A1(b) imposes "a > duty to make available its partnership understandings... before > commencing play". It requires the RA to "specif[y] the manner in > which this shall be done". It does not, however, give the RA the > authority to abrogate this obigatory duty altogether. So if an RA > fails to provide a mechanism for providing the required disclosure > "before commencing play", that cannot mean that the disclosure is no > longer required; it can only mean that the timing of the disclosure > has been loosened to allow for it being given only if it turns out to > be needed. True. > It makes no sense to me to say that I have the absolute right to know > what my opponents' Blackwood responses mean if I ask them before the > auction starts (which is what L40A1(b) quite clearly says), but lose > the right to ask if I allow the auction to begin without having > anticipated that I might want to know about that (or any other!) > particular aspect of their system. Maybe for you it makes no sense. But the lawmakers thought otherwise. They allowed for the questions connected with the present auction. For me it's quite reasonable. Otherwise the opponents could force me to disclose many irrelevant things during the auction. Or maybe I should counter-attack? Should I ask them about their constructive agreements during the one-sided auction when my side is going for the slam? Don't you see that such approach would cause only troubles? And the only purpose is to catch the opponents when they have a mixup and the meaning of the misbid isn't on the CC. Sorry, Eric. The estimated NOS score after their opponents disaster is already higher than 80% of the top. To bend the Laws to give them sure 100% isn't worth it. And remember - there is always TD for the rescue. If the opponents will convince him that any information I didn't want to disclose was relevant to the auction and I've damaged them, he can redress their damage. But that didn't happen in whole my life and I don't think it will ever happen. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 23:33:30 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:33:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > If the answer is a matter of partnership agreement, it must be > divulged. If it is not a matter of partnership agreement, there is > nothing to divulge. It is legitimate to reply, "We do not play 3H > natural in reply to 2NT, and have no agreement as to what it would > mean if we did" -- but only if that it the truth! But that is not > analogous to Herman's or Bob's Blackwood examples. That would be the > case if you played (silly example alert) 3H as a transfer non-vul but > natural vul. In that case, it would be unacceptable to reply, "We > only have an agreement about replying to 3H natural when vulnerable, > and we are not vulnerable, so I don't have to tell you anything now; > if you want to know what our agreement is ask us when we're vulnerable." You have a right to say it's unacceptable. You may think that I'm a cheat or anything, I don't care. L20F1 is clear - I have to explain the meaning of the call and relevant things like alternative calls or inferences. Why do you think that the opponents are entitled to know something which is irrelevant to the current auction? How that can help them? Yes, I know. *Only* when we have a mixup. Sorry, no bonus. > > If your answer is "no" (as I hope) then tell me why should anybody be > > obliged to answer the question "what would 5D mean if 4NT was > > Blackwood > > instead of minors?" > > Because they are obigated to describe their partnership > understandings, and -- unlike in Maciej's transfer example -- the > answer is to be found among their partnership understandings. Ok. So after the auction pass-1S-pass-2S-pass-pass-? I'll ask you about your Blackwood. Then about Gerber. Then about splinters. Then about some other irrelevant agreements. Do you really think that's reasonable to require you to answer those questions? > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From svenpran at online.no Mon Dec 1 23:38:54 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:38:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <37A38910-A516-422A-8E16-9AEF166FCCDC@starpower.net> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be> <001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <37A38910-A516-422A-8E16-9AEF166FCCDC@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001101c95405$97993660$c6cba320$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ............... > There is an alternative way of looking at this. L40A1(b) imposes "a > duty to make available its partnership understandings... before > commencing play". It requires the RA to "specif[y] the manner in > which this shall be done". It does not, however, give the RA the > authority to abrogate this obigatory duty altogether. So if an RA > fails to provide a mechanism for providing the required disclosure > "before commencing play", that cannot mean that the disclosure is no > longer required; it can only mean that the timing of the disclosure > has been loosened to allow for it being given only if it turns out to > be needed. > > It makes no sense to me to say that I have the absolute right to know > what my opponents' Blackwood responses mean if I ask them before the > auction starts (which is what L40A1(b) quite clearly says), but lose > the right to ask if I allow the auction to begin without having > anticipated that I might want to know about that (or any other!) > particular aspect of their system. This is no problem at all: Information that should or could have been disclosed before commencing play can still be requested during the auction provided it is relevant at the time. Details on the answers to Blackwood are obviously relevant when Blackwood is used or could have been used according to the partnership understandings. Such details can hardly be relevant in a situation where Blackwood was neither used or an alternative, still according to the partnership understandings. So the actual situation is this: A player has an incorrect comprehension of his partnership understanding causing him to make a call that is not relevant in the actual situation. The important question is now: Does his mistake make relevant for the purpose of applying law 29F1 information related to this incorrect call that itself is not relevant because it was no alternative in the actual situation? I cannot see how that can be the case, inasmuch as we have repeatedly been told that no player is entitled to a description of a player's hand, only of the hand he has indicated by means of his calls (and play) according to his partnership understanding. Regards Sven From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 1 23:37:34 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:37:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl><4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <8ECA66B6-EDCF-4781-9A6D-B24CBC77E77B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005501c95405$676f8020$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Excuse me? They have asked you what your partnership agreement is > regarding a 5D response to Blackwood. That is a question they could > have asked and you could have answered over the telephone before > either you or they showed up at the bridge site, much less before any > of you had held a hand containing any number of aces It is solely a > question about your agreements. It has nothing whatsoever to do with > the contents of anybody's hand. I must have been cursed. I just found another fanatic. Read 20F1. And forget about your passion of "full disclosure". > > They know about mixup, they know > > about pre-alerts, CC, sometimes about our methods, about most popular > > versions of Blackwood. Why should I reveal anything more? > > Because the request was for you to disclose one of your "partnership > understandings", which you "ha[ve] a duty to make available... to > opponents" by law. Moonshine. Show me this Law. If your logic was correct than there would be no reason at all to have L20. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 00:54:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:54:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turned poacher. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c9538c$0bec6b60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>>Any ideas, using my law book not Herman's? >>> ~ G ~ +=+ Herman De Wael asserted: >>Again, wrong. Giving UI does result in damage. To say that it does >>not result in direct damage is sophistry. It results in damage. Law 12B1: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." Richard Hills: So under Bridge Law it is meaningless to say that one partner of an offending side can damage the other partner. Under Bridge Law only a non-offending or innocent side may be damaged. Grattan Endicott: >So far as I am concerned the law remains what it was, > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Dec 2 00:38:16 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:38:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> Bystry wrote: <...> > I know from your historical emails that you are a fanatic of full > disclosure. I agree that it's very important. But it shouldn't override any > other important things or common sense. Allowing the players to ask during > the auction about irrelevant things would result in a total mess. Think > about it - Blackwood can be played by my partnership in different ways > depending on different auctions. Do I have to disclose it all? Do I have to > spend 2 minutes during the auction to say something which is completely > unnecesary? Only because my opponents have a whim? No, I don't think so and > the lawmakers didn't think so either. > <...> I've read my way through this thread. It occurs to me to wonder, if we can go back to the 4NT explained as Blackwood but systemically for the minors, whether the misexplanation couldn't be construed as *making* the Blackwood responses relevant to the auction, even though 4NT *was* systemically for the minors? Yes, I know about the minuted interpretation. I'm willing to accept that the current legal position is that you don't have to disclose the Blackwood responses. As with Eric and Herman and (I think) Robert, it leaves me uncomfortable that I know how partner intended a bid, and opponents may not. It seems to me to be a simple enough proposition in principle - if you bid 4NT, and partner correctly alerts it as for the minors, then your responses to 4NT Blackwood are irrelevant to the auction and need not be disclosed. However, **if partner incorrectly explains 4NT as Blackwood**, then your responses to Blackwood just became relevant. Explain 5D as "preference for diamonds", as almost all agree that you should, but allow opponents to ask about the Blackwood responses too? Moral: If you don't want to disclose extra information, don't screw up your system in the first place? Brian. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 05:12:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:12:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] One alternative for the WBF [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49339B56.70105@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>However, given the unequivocal nature of the October 2008 >>WBF LC minutes, it is pernicious for Herman De Wael to >>attempt to mislead newbies to blml as to what is Lawful >>and unLawful now. Herman De Wael: >I only hope your views are not so cast in steel that you >are totally unable to imagine that you may have some >things wrong. Richard Hills: I only hope your views are not so cast in steel that you are totally unable to imagine that you may have some things wrong. Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex by Larry Niven at: http://www.larryniven.org/stories/Man_of_Steel_Woman_of_Kleenex.shtml Herman De Wael >Well, can we then discuss what the LC minute actually >means? > >Does it say that SEs [systemic explanations] are accepted. Law 72B2: "There is no obligation to draw attention to an infraction of law committed by one's own side (but see Law 20F for a mistaken explanation and see Laws 62A and 79A2)." Richard Hills: If one consults Laws 20F, 62A and 79A2 one discovers an overriding requirement under those Laws to draw attention to an infraction of Law committed by one's own side. Hence Law 72B2 has merely residual power, applying only when Laws 20F, 62A and 79A2 are not relevant. In the hypothetical absence of the bracketed clause of Law 72B2, then Law 72B2 would be inconsistent with the other three Laws, therefore Law 72B2 would require a WBF LC hypothetical interpretation to restore consistency. October 2008 WBF LC actual interpretation of Law 20F5(a): "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." Richard Hills: So this actual WBF LC interpretation has restored consistency to the Lawbook, in effect ruling that Laws 20F1 and 40B6 are overriding requirements which are "but" exceptions to Law 20F5(a). Hence Law 20F5(a) has merely residual power, applying only when Laws 20F1 and 40B6 are not relevant. Herman De Wael: >Or does it say that CEs [consistent misexplanations] are >outlawed. Richard Hills: Misexplanations have always been unLawful. Many years ago Herman De Wael tried to argue that explanations of partner's cards were more "truthful" than explanations of partnership understandings, but this argument too has been refuted. October 2008 WBF LC actual interpretation of Law 75: "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 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." Herman De Wael: >And if it does the latter - what is the penalty? Richard Hills: Penalty irrelevant. Whether or not a cheat is appropriately penalised, a cheat remains a cheat. While some say that intentionally infracting the rules of a game is cheating, I disagree due to having a more stringent definition. I define cheating as intentionally infracting the rules of a game **due to seeking to gain a score advantage**. Since one blmler's own website admits that he is an excellent Director but an incompetent player, by my definition it is impossible for that blmler to cheat, since an incompetent player is incapable of seeking to gain a score advantage. :-) Indeed, the late great Tasmanian Director Roger Penny advised me, when playing against Tassie bunnies, to defer my Law 16 summonings until the end of the deal, since the bunnies were so incompetent in their unLawful use of UI that they often caused negative damage to my side. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 09:54:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:54:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <003b01c95403$62c3bd40$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred><493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <37A38910-A516-422A-8E16-9AEF166FCCDC@starpower.net> <003b01c95403$62c3bd40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4934F7A9.9080705@skynet.be> Sorry Maciej, your argument yesterday was very convincing, but this one simply isn't: Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> There is an alternative way of looking at this. L40A1(b) imposes "a >> duty to make available its partnership understandings... before >> commencing play". It requires the RA to "specif[y] the manner in >> which this shall be done". It does not, however, give the RA the >> authority to abrogate this obigatory duty altogether. So if an RA >> fails to provide a mechanism for providing the required disclosure >> "before commencing play", that cannot mean that the disclosure is no >> longer required; it can only mean that the timing of the disclosure >> has been loosened to allow for it being given only if it turns out to >> be needed. > > True. > >> It makes no sense to me to say that I have the absolute right to know >> what my opponents' Blackwood responses mean if I ask them before the >> auction starts (which is what L40A1(b) quite clearly says), but lose >> the right to ask if I allow the auction to begin without having >> anticipated that I might want to know about that (or any other!) >> particular aspect of their system. > > Maybe for you it makes no sense. But the lawmakers thought otherwise. They > allowed for the questions connected with the present auction. For me it's > quite reasonable. Otherwise the opponents could force me to disclose many > irrelevant things during the auction. Or maybe I should counter-attack? > Should I ask them about their constructive agreements during the one-sided > auction when my side is going for the slam? Don't you see that such approach > would cause only troubles? And the only purpose is to catch the opponents > when they have a mixup and the meaning of the misbid isn't on the CC. > > Sorry, Eric. The estimated NOS score after their opponents disaster is > already higher than 80% of the top. To bend the Laws to give them sure 100% > isn't worth it. > And remember - there is always TD for the rescue. If the opponents will > convince him that any information I didn't want to disclose was relevant to > the auction and I've damaged them, he can redress their damage. But that > didn't happen in whole my life and I don't think it will ever happen. > Of course the information that the player has one ace (or has shown one ace) is relevant. That is not the point. Your point was, and correctly is, that since 5Di is a misbid, the opponents are not entitled to know what the intention of the player making the misbid actually was. So while they are entitled to know that 5Di shows one ace in Blackwood, and they are allowed to know that he was responding to Blackwood, they are _not_ entitled to know that he intended to show the number of aces in his hand. Since they are not entitled to know his intention, the system he uses for codifying what he wants to say are not relevant at the present time. So please Maciej, forget the arguments I've debunked so often already, and stick to the one argument which is correct. No, two actually: they are not entitled to the information because the WBF has said so. >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 09:59:57 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:59:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <000f01c9545c$59d7a940$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > I've read my way through this thread. It occurs to me to wonder, if we > can go back to the 4NT explained as Blackwood but systemically for the > minors, whether the misexplanation couldn't be construed as *making* > the Blackwood responses relevant to the auction, even though 4NT *was* > systemically for the minors? We could. There will be next revision of the Laws and it's possible that your view will be incorporated. But remember that it's very hard to satisfy everyone. I'm comfortable with current view regarding disclosure but there are other Laws I see as unfortunate/too complicated/bad/whatever. I have to live with them and I have to accept that other people have different opinions (e.g regarding new 12C I'm nearly alone here). > Yes, I know about the minuted interpretation. I'm willing to accept > that the current legal position is that you don't have to disclose the > Blackwood responses. As with Eric and Herman and (I think) Robert, it > leaves me uncomfortable that I know how partner intended a bid, and > opponents may not. I understand this discomfort. It may seem unfair or look like hiding something. But in fact it isn't when you try to look at the base of the problem. Imagine the situation when your partner misbid and you get a flash of insight from external source that he did it. Suppose you treat this brainvawe as UI and bid according to your agreements. But do you think you are morally obligated to inform your opponents about the misbid? It seems to me that your group, if I can name it like that, is quite close to Bobby Wolff's ideas. You see it as unfair that somebody misbids and the opponents can be screwed. It may seem unfair but only at the moment of the fix at the table. Because if we look at it globally it's easy to see that opponents' misbids result in many, many more good scores for us. The situation we're discussing is even more disastrous for the misbidders (and more favourable for their opponents). Remember the question I asked earlier? If your answer was "yes" then my current analysis is redundant (and we can return to the previous point in the next email). But if it was "no", then we now have an interesting situation - partner misbid and an accident (his forget and resulting misexplanation) forces you to inform the opponents about the misbid. So the things went further than you'd feel necessary. The opponents have got a bonus, something extra - they are not entitled to know about misbids, but they get to know anyway. Now I say - that bonus is okay, there are strong UI restrictions for the OS, the NOS is put in very comfortable position (particurarly comparing to those poor NOS players who don't know about misbids/psyches) being aware what's going one and being able to use this knowledge. But I don't see any need for giving them another bonus and reveal the misbidder's hand to them. In most of the situations they will know what he has anyway. Sometimes they'll misjudge the situation and still get fixed, like the "victims" of mere misbid or psyche. That is just bridge, always dependent on a dose of luck. You say - that bonus is okay (here Herman disagrees with the second portion of UI) but we should make certain that the OS won't have even the slightess chance of recovering by forcing them to, de facto, reveal the contents of their hands. To sum our positions up: - Herman wants to postpone the correct information to avoid the creation of "second" UI and to deny the opponents the bonus of the knowledge about mixup during the auction - I don't care about "second" UI and stand firm that the opponents are always entitled to know the correct systemic explanations of calls that were made, directly afterwards. So they're de facto entitled to know about the mixup (but that is only side-effect, a bonus given by my error in explanation). But they are never, in no situation, entitled to know the reasons for the mistake (misbid, misexplanation) and to the knowledge about the contents of my (and my partner's) hand. - your position is similar to mine, but you want to (per force) add another bonus to the opponents - reveal the reasons of the mistake and the contents of misbidder hand Although Herman's way may result in visibly better scores for the OS on average, our approaches won't differ that much. I estimate it as 1-5% of the top on average. Of course I see nothing wrong in giving the NOS more, but I'm wholeheartedly against one of the most important (at least for me) rules in bridge - nothing should force nobody to disclose the contents of his hand to anybody (ok, dummy excluded ;-) ). That's why I don't agree with your approach although my heart applauds your efforts going in the right direction. > It seems to me to be a simple enough proposition in principle - if you > bid 4NT, and partner correctly alerts it as for the minors, then your > responses to 4NT Blackwood are irrelevant to the auction and need not > be disclosed. However, **if partner incorrectly explains 4NT as > Blackwood**, then your responses to Blackwood just became relevant. > Explain 5D as "preference for diamonds", as almost all agree that you > should, but allow opponents to ask about the Blackwood responses too? Such a change would be simple to implement. If your view will prevail in the next revision, there should be no problem at all. > Moral: If you don't want to disclose extra information, don't screw up > your system in the first place? It sounds good as it is written but if we go into the details, things start to get more complicated. > Brian. Maciej Bystry From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Dec 2 10:09:54 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:09:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation Message-ID: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer protesting, so i think it can be debated. S-EO K64 KQ643 93 J75 Q1073 J852 75 102 QJ107 542 A86 Q942 A9 AJ98 AK86 K103 1D - 1H - 3NT - 4C - 4D - 4NT - 5D - 6H - - - N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 10:18:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:18:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be> <002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be> May I remind you, Maciej, that you have given no response to my long post in which I set out that it is quite possible, logically, for there to be two actions that are acceptable. You don't care anymore about this discussion, and I cannot force you to continue it. But please don't end discussions with posts like this one: Bystry wrote: > Sorry Herman, I give up. I've got more pleasant things to do than for the > n-th time read your typical statements "you're wrong", "your logic is > false", "very bad logic", "my logic is pure" etc. Think what you want, I > don't care. Our discussion about the dWS or CEs are definitely finished. > It is you who stops this discussion without even bothering to answer a number of logical arguments. > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 2 10:57:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:57:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <49350698.30304@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different > appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer > protesting, so i think it can be debated. > AG : and I naively thought we ciould be consulted to help in solving cases :-\ > S-EO K64 > KQ643 > 93 > J75 > Q1073 J852 > 75 102 > QJ107 542 > A86 Q942 > A9 > AJ98 > AK86 > K103 > > 1D - 1H - > 3NT - 4C - > 4D - 4NT - > 5D - 6H - > - - > > N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an > unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their > actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform > east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and > that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he > had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD > then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E > said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an > undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. > AG : explaining more isn't standard practice. It's considered by many as being part of active ethics. But, as any non-standard practice, it is subject to "could have known" provisions (L72). So the question is : at the moment when he gave the extra information, did South know it could help his side to do so, so that he could theoretically have done it on purpose ? Surely not. Make North's hand something like Kxx - KQxxxx - Qx - xx (surely a possibility) and South would indeed be using active ethics and helping opponents. Saying South could have sdone it on purpose equals to pretending he could know partner held the CJ. Score stands. Best regards Alain From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 2 11:11:41 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:11:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <001101c95466$601cd730$20568590$@com> [JPR] E led a club, 12 tricks were won [DALB] Fixed by the dWS, as usual. If players would confine themselves to explaining their methods as the Laws require, rather than their own (or partner's presumed) holdings as the Laws forbid, bridge might be an easier game than it actually is. [JPR] E said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an undue information [DALB] "Undue"? No, no - he got only what the logical Herman says he should get, which was an explanation of what South actually held despite the fact that South had not actually shown it. But well it was said by the philosopher: if only people wouldn't go about righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many wrongs to right. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Dec 2 11:18:30 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:18:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49350698.30304@ulb.ac.be> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> <49350698.30304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001201c95467$52f76740$f8e635c0$@com> [AG] Score stands. [DALB] Utter nonsense. Down one, and South disqualified. What in blazes did South think he was doing? David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 2 11:41:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:41:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <001201c95467$52f76740$f8e635c0$@com> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> <49350698.30304@ulb.ac.be> <001201c95467$52f76740$f8e635c0$@com> Message-ID: <493510F3.1000702@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > Score stands. > > [DALB] > > Utter nonsense. Down one, and South disqualified. What in blazes did South > think he was doing? > In my youth, I was told it was not necessary, but always appreciated, to state, as declarer or dummy, that your hand doens't conform to the explanation, even if the latter was right. Now you tell me this risks disqualification ? What do you exactly want ? Giving crooks good reason to hide their agreements ? Then you're tright. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 11:39:47 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:39:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > May I remind you, Maciej, that you have given no response to my long > post in which I set out that it is quite possible, logically, for there > to be two actions that are acceptable. Sorry, Herman, but I have every right to end any discussion at the moment that fits me. Our exchange of arguments was so long that you were not deprived of the possibility to state your full opinions. And I'm absolutely not obliged to continue to the point when you are satisfied - that won't happen because I will never agree with many of your arguments. I could continue this discussion but for the fact that you're trying to act as a competitor and a judge in one person. Your manners make me nervous and I have enough different real-life problems that do the same. Here I'd wish to exchange ideas, obtain knowledge, have some fun. Look at the recent email from Brian - try to learn from him how is it possible to present some ideas and arguments in a pleasant, constructive manner, without criticizing the interlocutor, without spurious things like "mine is the only reason and the holy reason, because if it's even yours too, my reason is still "miner" than "yourer", and believe me that it's my reason which is "minest" ". And I realized that arguing with you causes my style to get closer to yours, not to Adam's. I consider it to be very bad and I want to get back to my normal, cultural behavior. That is my personal opinion and I can be easily wrong. I know that I'm not alone in my feelings. You are always welcome to state your arguments to me or seek my opinion on any topic. But you have to give me the right to disagree with you and to end our discussion when it's clear that it leads to nowhere. > Herman. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 13:23:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:23:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000f01c9545c$59d7a940$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> <000f01c9545c$59d7a940$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493528D6.5000507@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> Yes, I know about the minuted interpretation. I'm willing to accept >> that the current legal position is that you don't have to disclose the >> Blackwood responses. As with Eric and Herman and (I think) Robert, it >> leaves me uncomfortable that I know how partner intended a bid, and >> opponents may not. > > I understand this discomfort. It may seem unfair or look like hiding > something. But in fact it isn't when you try to look at the base of the > problem. Imagine the situation when your partner misbid and you get a flash > of insight from external source that he did it. Suppose you treat this > brainvawe as UI and bid according to your agreements. But do you think you > are morally obligated to inform your opponents about the misbid? > There is a better way of looking at this discomfort. Yes, you know something about partner's hand, and you believe you should tell the opponents. But what you know is UI to you - so why feel discomforted by not telling the opponents? But: now I had again some insight. Maciej is trying hard to convince me that we should give the NOS as much as possible. I feel they are not entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding, but Maciej believes they should have all the benefits. Why then, Maciej, do you not agree that opponents should also have the knowledge of there being one ace? You cannot have it both ways: you cannot maintain that they are not entitled to some knowledge, therefore you don't give it, and at the same time criticise me for not giving them some other piece of knowledge, that they are also not entitled to. I'm not saying this as a definite argument in my favour, but merely as a refutation of your arguments. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 13:30:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:30:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be> <001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> May I remind you, Maciej, that you have given no response to my long >> post in which I set out that it is quite possible, logically, for there >> to be two actions that are acceptable. > > Sorry, Herman, but I have every right to end any discussion at the moment > that fits me. Our exchange of arguments was so long that you were not > deprived of the possibility to state your full opinions. And I'm absolutely > not obliged to continue to the point when you are satisfied - that won't > happen because I will never agree with many of your arguments. > Of course not. But then you should not criticise me for repeating over and over that I'm right. Either shut up or criticise and continue. > I could continue this discussion but for the fact that you're trying to act > as a competitor and a judge in one person. Your manners make me nervous and > I have enough different real-life problems that do the same. Here I'd wish > to exchange ideas, obtain knowledge, have some fun. Look at the recent email > from Brian - try to learn from him how is it possible to present some ideas > and arguments in a pleasant, constructive manner, without criticizing the > interlocutor, without spurious things like "mine is the only reason and the > holy reason, because if it's even yours too, my reason is still "miner" than > "yourer", and believe me that it's my reason which is "minest" ". And I > realized that arguing with you causes my style to get closer to yours, not > to Adam's. I consider it to be very bad and I want to get back to my normal, > cultural behavior. > Pleasant, constructive manner? I did not realise that I was not doing so. May I just cite one sentence where your manner was anything but pleasant and constructive. I write from memory: "SE's are *mand*da*to*ry*" (Bystry, some days ago) this is nothing more than the repeat of something you've said 7 times before, to which I have agreed, and to which I have said (in the just previous post) that this did not matter, since the opposite is also mandatory. By adding *** and separating the syllables, all you were doing was shouting. Hardly pleasant and constructive. > That is my personal opinion and I can be easily wrong. I know that I'm not > alone in my feelings. You are always welcome to state your arguments to me > or seek my opinion on any topic. But you have to give me the right to > disagree with you and to end our discussion when it's clear that it leads to > nowhere. > You have every right to disagree with me. But when I write a detailed logical reasoning for my opinion, and you just shout back "no", I have every right to feel that you have not done what you believe to be necessary: pleasant and constructive reasoning. And no, I don't feel that this is symmetrical: all my posts contain detailed logical reasoning as to why I believe you are wrong. Yours do not always contain such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. See the example above. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 13:33:01 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:33:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <001101c95466$601cd730$20568590$@com> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> <001101c95466$601cd730$20568590$@com> Message-ID: <49352AFD.2080504@skynet.be> I resent my name being used in a post I have absolutely no opinion about, and which does not even reflect my views. That's the second time, David. Stop it. David Burn wrote: > [JPR] > > E led a club, 12 tricks were won > > [DALB] > > Fixed by the dWS, as usual. If players would confine themselves to > explaining their methods as the Laws require, rather than their own (or > partner's presumed) holdings as the Laws forbid, bridge might be an easier > game than it actually is. > > [JPR] > > E said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an undue > information > > [DALB] > > "Undue"? No, no - he got only what the logical Herman says he should get, > which was an explanation of what South actually held despite the fact that > South had not actually shown it. But well it was said by the philosopher: if > only people wouldn't go about righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many > wrongs to right. > > David Burn > London, England > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 2 14:02:13 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:02:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:38:16 -0500, brian wrote: > Bystry wrote: > > <...> >> I know from your historical emails that you are a fanatic of full >> disclosure. I agree that it's very important. But it shouldn't override >> any >> other important things or common sense. Allowing the players to ask >> during >> the auction about irrelevant things would result in a total mess. Think >> about it - Blackwood can be played by my partnership in different ways >> depending on different auctions. Do I have to disclose it all? Do I >> have to >> spend 2 minutes during the auction to say something which is completely >> unnecesary? Only because my opponents have a whim? No, I don't think so >> and >> the lawmakers didn't think so either. >> > <...> > > I've read my way through this thread. It occurs to me to wonder, if we > can go back to the 4NT explained as Blackwood but systemically for the > minors, whether the misexplanation couldn't be construed as *making* > the Blackwood responses relevant to the auction, even though 4NT *was* > systemically for the minors? > > Yes, I know about the minuted interpretation. I'm willing to accept > that the current legal position is that you don't have to disclose the > Blackwood responses. As with Eric and Herman and (I think) Robert, it > leaves me uncomfortable that I know how partner intended a bid, and > opponents may not. > > It seems to me to be a simple enough proposition in principle - if you > bid 4NT, and partner correctly alerts it as for the minors, then your > responses to 4NT Blackwood are irrelevant to the auction and need not > be disclosed. However, **if partner incorrectly explains 4NT as > Blackwood**, then your responses to Blackwood just became relevant. > Explain 5D as "preference for diamonds", as almost all agree that you > should, but allow opponents to ask about the Blackwood responses too? > > Moral: If you don't want to disclose extra information, don't screw up > your system in the first place? To my surprise, some players are comfortable with the WBFLC opinion -- that's how they would play bridge, and that's how they want to play bridge. If the WBFLC had ruled the opposite way and this was trickled down, this (roughly estimated) 10% would have to learn to play bridge in a way they didn't like and weren't expecting. Of course, making 10% unhappy isn't as bad as making 90% unhappy. And we want 100% of the bridge players happy with a law and expecting to play that way. It's a long painful march from 10% to 100%. 90% to 100% would have been a lot shorter. SIMPLICITY I think the problem of simplicity is even more general. There is a simple law to divulge any partnership agreement (etc.) upon request. That works well. The WBFLC has added the word "only" to L20F1, and I think that's a big change. Of promulgated, players may learn that they don't have to reveal everything, just what is relevant. I have the occasional problem at the table that the opps don't want to answer my question. They will say "But I didn't bid 3S" when I ask what it would have meant if they did. They will say "But you are going to see the dummy" when I ask declarer about one of dummy's bids. A little insistence has always worked, buts that's in the ACBL millieu of full disclosure. If the WBFLC opinion trickled down ACBL-land, there would be a lot more confusion about what needs to be divulged and what does not. And that doesn't even consider the ramifications of the new L20F1 for asking about insufficient bids. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 14:01:59 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:01:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com><000f01c9545c$59d7a940$15844c59@chello.pl> <493528D6.5000507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000f01c9547e$29cec900$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > But: now I had again some insight. Maciej is trying hard to convince me > that we should give the NOS as much as possible. I feel they are not > entitled to the knowledge of the misunderstanding, but Maciej believes > they should have all the benefits. Why then, Maciej, do you not agree > that opponents should also have the knowledge of there being one ace? [answer from the same email snipped by you] Of course I see nothing wrong in giving the NOS more, but I'm wholeheartedly against one of the most important (at least for me) rules in bridge - nothing should force nobody to disclose the contents of his hand to anybody (ok, dummy excluded ;-) ). That's why I don't agree with your approach although my heart applauds your efforts going in the right direction. [/answer] > Herman. Regards Maciej From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Dec 2 14:08:52 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:08:52 -0400 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> Message-ID: Result stands. Souths volunteered info did not make it more attractive for E to lead a club. Jack On 12/2/08 5:09 AM, "Jean-Pierre Rocafort" wrote: > i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different > appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer > protesting, so i think it can be debated. > > S-EO K64 > KQ643 > 93 > J75 > Q1073 J852 > 75 102 > QJ107 542 > A86 Q942 > A9 > AJ98 > AK86 > K103 > > 1D - 1H - > 3NT - 4C - > 4D - 4NT - > 5D - 6H - > - - > > N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an > unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their > actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform > east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and > that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he > had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD > then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E > said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an > undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. > > jpr From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 14:13:14 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:13:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Of course not. But then you should not criticise me for repeating over > and over that I'm right. ***Either shut up or criticise and continue***. Who do you think you are? I demand an apology, otherwise pray we'll never meet. > May I just cite one sentence where your manner was anything but pleasant > and constructive. I write from memory: > > "SE's are *mand*da*to*ry*" (Bystry, some days ago) [And I realized that arguing with you causes my style to get closer to yours, not to Adam's. I consider it to be very bad and I want to get back to my normal, cultural behavior.] > You have every right to disagree with me. But when ***I write a detailed > logical reasoning for my opinion,*** and ***you just shout back "no"***, I have > every right to feel that you have not done what you believe to be > necessary: pleasant and constructive reasoning. [without spurious things like "mine is the only reason and the holy reason, because if it's even yours too, my reason is still "miner" than "yourer", and believe me that it's my reason which is "minest" ".] > And no, I don't feel that this is symmetrical: all my posts contain > detailed logical reasoning as to why I believe you are wrong. Yours do > not always contain such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. See the > example above. See quote above. No, Herman, you won't manage to provoke me to behave like you. One more email like this and they all will land in my junk box. > Herman. Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Dec 2 14:43:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:43:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1L74xY-15U8Aq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> References: <1L6sTM-2GqtCS0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> <001801c9534a$db8372c0$928a5840$@no> <1L74xY-15U8Aq0@fwd11.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:20:52 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Max Bavin (from: 2008 TD Seminar in Torino, Law 27, > "Recommended Tournament Director procedure"): > 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was > trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to > guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his > opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) > and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification > of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD])." Many people interpreted L20F1 as Max did, as allowing players to know the full details of their opponent's system. My question is of interest only if you didn't believe that or if you want to answer according to the WBFLC rewrite of Law 20F1. The WBFLC's rewrite doesn't seem amgiguous to me. The 1C opening bid wasn't made and couldn't have been made. Therefore, players do not have to tell the opps the meaning of that call. "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (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.)" From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 14:46:50 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:46:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000d01c95484$6d957f20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different > appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer > protesting, so i think it can be debated. > > S-EO K64 > KQ643 > 93 > J75 > Q1073 J852 > 75 102 > QJ107 542 > A86 Q942 > A9 > AJ98 > AK86 > K103 > > 1D - 1H - > 3NT - 4C - > 4D - 4NT - > 5D - 6H - > - - > > N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an > unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their > actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform > east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and > that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he > had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD > then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E > said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an > undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. That just shows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Were I sitting E, I would follow his reasoning - if the club shortness at S looks fine for N, there is a strong probability that he's got nothing wasted in this suit - A, J, small ones. So club lead is unattractive, it seems better to start with a trump (or risky spade lead). But now, when I know that S doesn't have shortness, the club lead became more interesting - there is a possibility that the clubs can be thrown from the N hand on diamonds or from the S hand on spades. Of course the club lead can still be disastrous (as it was) but it's attractivity has risen. So in my opinion E was mislead by the gratitous comment from S and I would wish to adjust the score (although without any PP for S). But now, Houston, we have a problem. I'm struggling hard to find any Law which allows for the adjustment. Certainly S "couldn't have known", his correction would be disastrous for him if his partner had QJ sec of diamonds instead of J of clubs. So I'll wait for anyone who could help me to find proper solution (even those who don't want to adjust are invited) ;-) > jpr Regards Maciej From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Dec 2 14:55:08 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:55:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49352AFD.2080504@skynet.be> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> <001101c95466$601cd730$20568590$@com> <49352AFD.2080504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49353E3C.5070007@meteo.fr> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I resent my name being used in a post I have absolutely no opinion > about, and which does not even reflect my views. > > That's the second time, David. Stop it. it's not your name, dws is now the common noun of a thought process, just like cartesianism or aristotelian. you need to get accustomed to celebrity. jpr > > David Burn wrote: >> [JPR] >> >> E led a club, 12 tricks were won >> >> [DALB] >> >> Fixed by the dWS, as usual. If players would confine themselves to >> explaining their methods as the Laws require, rather than their own (or >> partner's presumed) holdings as the Laws forbid, bridge might be an easier >> game than it actually is. >> >> [JPR] >> >> E said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an undue >> information >> >> [DALB] >> >> "Undue"? No, no - he got only what the logical Herman says he should get, >> which was an explanation of what South actually held despite the fact that >> South had not actually shown it. But well it was said by the philosopher: if >> only people wouldn't go about righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many >> wrongs to right. >> >> David Burn >> London, England -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 15:56:52 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:56:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49353E3C.5070007@meteo.fr> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> <001101c95466$601cd730$20568590$@com> <49352AFD.2080504@skynet.be> <49353E3C.5070007@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <49354CB4.20005@skynet.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I resent my name being used in a post I have absolutely no opinion >> about, and which does not even reflect my views. >> >> That's the second time, David. Stop it. > > it's not your name, dws is now the common noun of a thought process, > just like cartesianism or aristotelian. you need to get accustomed to > celebrity. > He did use the name Herman a bit further down as well! > jpr >> David Burn wrote: >>> "Undue"? No, no - he got only what the logical Herman says he should get, >>> which was an explanation of what South actually held despite the fact that >>> South had not actually shown it. But well it was said by the philosopher: if >>> only people wouldn't go about righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many >>> wrongs to right. >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England > From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 15:59:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:59:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00b601c953bc$1db30b80$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be><004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933DE33.4030407@skynet.be> <00b601c953bc$1db30b80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <2C2732D2-0740-4FAD-9EE2-FE09BE8AD0E1@starpower.net> On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Bystry wrote: >> So you believe that L20F1 contains a limitation to the things that >> may >> be asked, while L20F2 contains no limitation at all? >> You believe that it was the intention of the lawmakers to limit the >> asking of irrelevant questions, but only during the auction, not >> during >> the play period? > > No. That's what Bob was asking about. I always stated that the Laws > do not > require to disclose the agreements irrelevant to the auction - > during the > auction and during the play. The appropriate time is before the > first board > is played and during the whole board there is a SC available. So > everything > you wrote was under the misconception. > >> Herman. Wouldn't that mean that the information to which the opponents were "entitled" was a function of how you filled out your SC? In real life, some pairs provide the minimum required information, while others cover the form with fine print detailing lots of additional agreements. RAs design SCs/CCs to cover the most important aspects of one's system in the limited available space. L40A1(b) would, absent its second sentence, require the RA to supply an infinitely long form on which all aspects of the partnership's understandings could be disclosed in detail. Obviously, that's impractical (although not impossible), so L40A1(b) gives the RA the right to determine which understandings are common and important enough to warrant mention in the limited space available. But neither the RA's design of the SC/CC nor the individual player's choice as to exactly what to write on it can affect the nature of the information ("its partnership understandings") that must be "ma[d]e available... to opponents". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 16:14:59 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:14:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Of course not. But then you should not criticise me for repeating over >> and over that I'm right. ***Either shut up or criticise and continue***. > > Who do you think you are? I demand an apology, otherwise pray we'll never > meet. > I don't see why I need to apologise, but I'll do so, hoping we shall one day meet and be able to have a civilised beer or three. But I maintain my criticism. You tell me you want out of the discussion because I do nothing but repeat my arguments. Yet you do the same. Moreover, IMO, my arguments are founded in reason and logic, whereas yours are merely repeats of unfounded statements. OK, that is just my opinion, so feel free to check about it. I gave one example of you doing no more than shout your conviction (*mand*da*to*ry*) without any foundation. I gave one example of me giving a reasoned argument (two opposing actions can both be acceptable) to which you did not even reply. Now I don't need you to continue the discussion. But if you then want to taint my reputation, it is I who will be demanding an apology. >> May I just cite one sentence where your manner was anything but pleasant >> and constructive. I write from memory: >> >> "SE's are *mand*da*to*ry*" (Bystry, some days ago) > > [And I realized that arguing with you causes my style to get closer to > yours, not to Adam's. I consider it to be very bad and I want to get back to > my normal, cultural behavior.] > I accept your apology on the tone. I get carried away into shouting myself some of the time. I did not mind the shouting, and did not comment on the tone (in my immediate reply), only on the content. >> You have every right to disagree with me. But when ***I write a detailed >> logical reasoning for my opinion,*** and ***you just shout back "no"***, I > have >> every right to feel that you have not done what you believe to be >> necessary: pleasant and constructive reasoning. > > [without spurious things like "mine is the only reason and the holy reason, > because if it's even yours too, my reason is still "miner" than "yourer", > and believe me that it's my reason which is "minest" ".] > I have never said that mine is the only reason. I only claim that my posts are attempts at reasoned conclusions from stated definitions. Your posts are (sometimes - there are other examples too) repeats of unfounded prior convictions. >> And no, I don't feel that this is symmetrical: all my posts contain >> detailed logical reasoning as to why I believe you are wrong. Yours do >> not always contain such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. See the >> example above. > > See quote above. > > No, Herman, you won't manage to provoke me to behave like you. One more > email like this and they all will land in my junk box. > Well, it is not my intention to provoke you. It is my intention to get you to follow the reasoning and pick away at it - or accept it. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Still wanting to have that beer one day, Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 16:35:33 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:35:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Bystry wrote: >> The Laws require you to "make available [your] partnership >> understandings to opponents before commencing play against >> them" [L40A1(b)]. What you are capable of explaining "before >> commencing play" does not depend on "*the* calls in *the* auction". >> You are not excused from fulfilling this explicit "duty" just because >> your opponents permitted the auction to start before realizing they >> would want some particular piece of the totality to the information >> to which L40A1(b) unamibiguously entitles them. "The RA specifies >> the manner in which this shall be done" does *not* mean that the RA >> may specify (implicitly or otherwise) that it not be done at all. > > Sorry Eric, but I don't know what are you talking about. Do you > accuse me of > hiding any information from my opponents? Do you know anything > about my way > of playing bridge to risk such statements? I'm fulfilling any > obligations > the Laws put on me. "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them" [L40A1(b)]. Does Maciej actually do that? Note that it says "its partnership understandings", not "those partnership understandings it thinks are important" nor "those partnership understandings it can fit into the spaces on the CC". > On my CC are all the agreements that are important. Of > course *everything* can't be disclosed that way. Right. So mustn't L40A1(b) mean that everything that "can't be disclosed that way" must be disclosed some other way? > So I explain anything which > is *relevant* to the actual auction. But I don't have any > obligation to > disclose anything during the auction/play which is irrelevant to > it. If you > think that I have to disclose what kind of Blackwood does my > partnership use > during the auction in which Blackwood wasn't bid, then show me the > Law that > forces me to do it. L40A1(b) says only about disclosing *before > commencing > play*. L20F1 says what has to be disclosed during the auction. > > I know from your historical emails that you are a fanatic of full > disclosure. I agree that it's very important. But it shouldn't > override any > other important things or common sense. Allowing the players to ask > during > the auction about irrelevant things would result in a total mess. > Think > about it - Blackwood can be played by my partnership in different ways > depending on different auctions. Do I have to disclose it all? Do I > have to > spend 2 minutes during the auction to say something which is > completely > unnecesary? Only because my opponents have a whim? No, I don't > think so and > the lawmakers didn't think so either. > > Full disclosure, as understood by some people, would sometimes lead > to worse > things than hiding something. E.g. I see no sense in explaining > that partner > forgot one sequence two months ago. It can only boggle opponents' > minds. > They will risk some action dependent on the hypotetical forget in > present > (thinking that I must have a reason to say something about it) and > they will > get a poor score. And although I wouldn't break any law this way I > would > feel morally responsible for their debacle. > > As in every case in our world, moderation is required with the > concept of > full disclosure. It shouldn't become a tool to mislead anybody or > to satisfy > somebody's whim. > >> Eric Landau Edgar Kaplan explained the objective of full disclosure as follows: Imagine that every player had a complete and detailed written explanation of all of his opponents' partnership agreements, which he was able to consult at any time without his partner or his opponents being aware that he was doing so. Disclosure regulations should be designed to emulate this ideal as closely as possible. I happen to agree with Mr. Kaplan. If that makes me a "fanatic of full disclosure" I accept the designation happily. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 16:51:31 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:51:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl> <004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net> On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:33 PM, Bystry wrote: >> If the answer is a matter of partnership agreement, it must be >> divulged. If it is not a matter of partnership agreement, there is >> nothing to divulge. It is legitimate to reply, "We do not play 3H >> natural in reply to 2NT, and have no agreement as to what it would >> mean if we did" -- but only if that it the truth! But that is not >> analogous to Herman's or Bob's Blackwood examples. That would be the >> case if you played (silly example alert) 3H as a transfer non-vul but >> natural vul. In that case, it would be unacceptable to reply, "We >> only have an agreement about replying to 3H natural when vulnerable, >> and we are not vulnerable, so I don't have to tell you anything now; >> if you want to know what our agreement is ask us when we're >> vulnerable." > > You have a right to say it's unacceptable. You may think that I'm a > cheat or > anything, I don't care. L20F1 is clear - I have to explain the > meaning of > the call and relevant things like alternative calls or inferences. > Why do > you think that the opponents are entitled to know something which is > irrelevant to the current auction? How that can help them? Yes, I > know. > *Only* when we have a mixup. Sorry, no bonus. > >>> If your answer is "no" (as I hope) then tell me why should >>> anybody be >>> obliged to answer the question "what would 5D mean if 4NT was >>> Blackwood >>> instead of minors?" >> >> Because they are obigated to describe their partnership >> understandings, and -- unlike in Maciej's transfer example -- the >> answer is to be found among their partnership understandings. > > Ok. So after the auction pass-1S-pass-2S-pass-pass-? I'll ask you > about your > Blackwood. Then about Gerber. Then about splinters. Then about some > other > irrelevant agreements. Do you really think that's reasonable to > require you > to answer those questions? > >> Eric Landau Of course not. Try it in my game and you'll be summarily thrown out. I can find half a dozen justifications in L74 alone. That doesn't mean you don't have the rights granted to you by L40A1(b), only that you have an obligation not to be illegally abusive in exercising them. You could just as easily, every time it is your turn to call, demand a full restatement of the auction complete with alerts and explanations. Try it in my game and you'll be summarily thrown out. I can find half a dozen justifications in L74 alone. That doesn't mean you don't have the rights granted to you by L20B, only that you have an obligation not to be illegally abusive in exercising them. Is this really a problem? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Dec 2 16:56:56 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:56:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <49355AC8.2030601@talktalk.net> [Jean Pierre Rocafort] i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer protesting, so i think it can be debated. S-EO K64 KQ643 93 J75 Q1073 J852 75 102 QJ107 542 A86 Q942 A9 AJ98 AK86 K103 1D - 1H - 3NT - 4C - 4D - 4NT - 5D - 6H - - - N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. [Nigel] I agree with the director's decision to let the score stand. Clearly, South seems to be trying to avoid profiting from his mistake. If South *could have known* that his legally superfluous information would be *likely* to help his side, then the TD should rule differently. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 16:58:49 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 16:58:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be><001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c95496$ddc56aa0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > I don't see why I need to apologise, but I'll do so, hoping we shall one > day meet and be able to have a civilised beer or three. Ok, I consider case closed. > But I maintain my criticism. You tell me you want out of the discussion > because I do nothing but repeat my arguments. No. In such a long discussion we had it's inevitable that some arguments were repeated. By you and by me. That's nothing wrong but it's a signal that the discussion starts to become pointless. We didn't reach consensus and we won't. You know my position and I know yours. Everybody else knows our positions. What is the point to prolong the abuse of the beated arguments? > Moreover, IMO, my arguments are founded in reason and logic, whereas > yours are merely repeats of unfounded statements. You couldn't refrain from this, don't you? You know, it is even funny when one looks at this from another point of view. :-) > Now I don't need you to continue the discussion. But if you then want to > taint my reputation, it is I who will be demanding an apology. Herman, reputation is usually created by one's deeds, not by other's opinions. I'm not a Guru of blml'ers, they have their own beliefs and certainly do not condition them on anything I might say or not. > I have never said that mine is the only reason. :-) > I only claim that my posts are attempts at reasoned conclusions from stated definitions. :-) > Your posts are (sometimes - there are other examples too) repeats of > unfounded prior convictions. :-) > Herman. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 17:02:48 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 11:02:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <0D6A043D-E823-4BED-822D-AC76A2B493CD@starpower.net> On Dec 1, 2008, at 6:38 PM, brian wrote: > Bystry wrote: > >> I know from your historical emails that you are a fanatic of full >> disclosure. I agree that it's very important. But it shouldn't >> override any >> other important things or common sense. Allowing the players to >> ask during >> the auction about irrelevant things would result in a total mess. >> Think >> about it - Blackwood can be played by my partnership in different >> ways >> depending on different auctions. Do I have to disclose it all? Do >> I have to >> spend 2 minutes during the auction to say something which is >> completely >> unnecesary? Only because my opponents have a whim? No, I don't >> think so and >> the lawmakers didn't think so either. > > I've read my way through this thread. It occurs to me to wonder, if we > can go back to the 4NT explained as Blackwood but systemically for the > minors, whether the misexplanation couldn't be construed as *making* > the Blackwood responses relevant to the auction, even though 4NT *was* > systemically for the minors? > > Yes, I know about the minuted interpretation. I'm willing to accept > that the current legal position is that you don't have to disclose the > Blackwood responses. As with Eric and Herman and (I think) Robert, it > leaves me uncomfortable that I know how partner intended a bid, and > opponents may not. > > It seems to me to be a simple enough proposition in principle - if you > bid 4NT, and partner correctly alerts it as for the minors, then your > responses to 4NT Blackwood are irrelevant to the auction and need not > be disclosed. However, **if partner incorrectly explains 4NT as > Blackwood**, then your responses to Blackwood just became relevant. > Explain 5D as "preference for diamonds", as almost all agree that you > should, but allow opponents to ask about the Blackwood responses too? > > Moral: If you don't want to disclose extra information, don't screw up > your system in the first place? According to Maciej's interpretation of L20, you are entitled to know what your opponents' Blackwood resposes are only if they deign to provide that information on their CC, but not otherwise. I fear that the lesson to be drawn is that it is to your potential advantage to be certain that only the absolute minimum of unambiguously required information appears on your CC. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 17:04:43 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <2C2732D2-0740-4FAD-9EE2-FE09BE8AD0E1@starpower.net> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be><004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933DE33.4030407@skynet.be> <00b601c953bc$1db30b80$15844c59@chello.pl> <2C2732D2-0740-4FAD-9EE2-FE09BE8AD0E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49355C9B.1040307@skynet.be> Hello Eric, I agree that this interpretation leaves a lot of things up in the air. But we must admit that it is logical to start with, and we must accept that the WBF have decided. If you want to argue to have it changed, you have my support. Herman. Eric Landau wrote: > On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Bystry wrote: > >>> So you believe that L20F1 contains a limitation to the things that >>> may >>> be asked, while L20F2 contains no limitation at all? >>> You believe that it was the intention of the lawmakers to limit the >>> asking of irrelevant questions, but only during the auction, not >>> during >>> the play period? >> No. That's what Bob was asking about. I always stated that the Laws >> do not >> require to disclose the agreements irrelevant to the auction - >> during the >> auction and during the play. The appropriate time is before the >> first board >> is played and during the whole board there is a SC available. So >> everything >> you wrote was under the misconception. >> >>> Herman. > > Wouldn't that mean that the information to which the opponents were > "entitled" was a function of how you filled out your SC? In real > life, some pairs provide the minimum required information, while > others cover the form with fine print detailing lots of additional > agreements. RAs design SCs/CCs to cover the most important aspects > of one's system in the limited available space. > > L40A1(b) would, absent its second sentence, require the RA to supply > an infinitely long form on which all aspects of the partnership's > understandings could be disclosed in detail. Obviously, that's > impractical (although not impossible), so L40A1(b) gives the RA the > right to determine which understandings are common and important > enough to warrant mention in the limited space available. But > neither the RA's design of the SC/CC nor the individual player's > choice as to exactly what to write on it can affect the nature of the > information ("its partnership understandings") that must be "ma[d]e > available... to opponents". > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 2 17:06:51 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:06:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49355D1B.4080002@skynet.be> Herman De Wael wrote: > unfounded prior convictions. > Upon re-reading, this wording seems wrong. I did not wish to imply that you had done jail-time. I hope my intended meaning got accross. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 2 17:26:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 17:26:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000d01c95484$6d957f20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr> <000d01c95484$6d957f20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493561B7.5050107@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > Hi, > > >> i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different >> appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer >> protesting, so i think it can be debated. >> >> S-EO K64 >> KQ643 >> 93 >> J75 >> Q1073 J852 >> 75 102 >> QJ107 542 >> A86 Q942 >> A9 >> AJ98 >> AK86 >> K103 >> >> 1D - 1H - >> 3NT - 4C - >> 4D - 4NT - >> 5D - 6H - >> - - >> >> N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an >> unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their >> actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform >> east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and >> that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he >> had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD >> then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E >> said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an >> undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. >> > > That just shows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Were I > sitting E, I would follow his reasoning - if the club shortness at S looks > fine for N, there is a strong probability that he's got nothing wasted in > this suit - A, J, small ones. So club lead is unattractive, it seems better > to start with a trump (or risky spade lead). But now, when I know that S > doesn't have shortness, the club lead became more interesting - there is a > possibility that the clubs can be thrown from the N hand on diamonds or from > the S hand on spades. Of course the club lead can still be disastrous (as it > was) but it's attractivity has risen. > > So in my opinion E was mislead by the gratitous comment from S and I would > wish to adjust the score (although without any PP for S). But now, Houston, > we have a problem. I'm struggling hard to find any Law which allows for the > adjustment. Certainly S "couldn't have known", his correction would be > disastrous for him if his partner had QJ sec of diamonds instead of J of > clubs. > > So I'll wait for anyone who could help me to find proper solution (even > those who don't want to adjust are invited) ;-) > AG : perhaps, if there isn't any law to support your desire for a rectification, it could mean that your desire isn't justified. There simply isn't any law to disallow overinformation, unless "could have known" or UI rears its head. The comment made East select the club lead, but the fact that there was damage is purely incidental. Say North leads a spade out of turn, and East disallows a Spade lead by South. South, who was about to lead a spade but may not, selects the killing Heart lead. Bad luck for East. Most of the time, however, East would gain from using what the events provided him with. We are in a similar situation. Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 17:40:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:40:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be><004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl><4933DE33.4030407@skynet.be><00b601c953bc$1db30b80$15844c59@chello.pl> <2C2732D2-0740-4FAD-9EE2-FE09BE8AD0E1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001101c9549c$ae5f91e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > No. That's what Bob was asking about. I always stated that the Laws > > do not > > require to disclose the agreements irrelevant to the auction - > > during the > > auction and during the play. The appropriate time is before the > > first board > > is played and during the whole board there is a SC available. So > > everything > > you wrote was under the misconception. > Wouldn't that mean that the information to which the opponents were > "entitled" was a function of how you filled out your SC? In real > life, some pairs provide the minimum required information, while > others cover the form with fine print detailing lots of additional > agreements. RAs design SCs/CCs to cover the most important aspects > of one's system in the limited available space. Eric, try to understand my point of view. I'm a supporter of the idea of full disclosure. But I'm also a supporter of common sense and logic. And I know that belief in absoluteness of anything often leads to fanaticism, which certainly is not in accord of sense and logic. The lawmakers seem to agree with me - they require pre-disclosure of the most important agreements and system overwiew - to enable the opponents to prepare for the most common auctions and establish some counter-agreements if they need so. Then, during the auction and play, only relevant parts of the system have to be disclosed. After the board the opponents have a right to call the TD and to raise their objections if they feel that something was not disclosed to them. Now let's leave the Laws for the moment. You deem that the opponents should always have an access to all the agreements. Right, honorable goal. But in our imperfect world we have to satisfy ourselves with imperfect solutions. These solutions have to be sensible and workable, that's what is important. Following your approach we'll come closer to the ideal of full disclosure but at the price of creating chaos and unpleasantness for many players. Why should anyone be put off his stride or feel harassed because of the whim of his opponents? Even nowadays we experience many unnecessary or absurd questions, asked because of curiosity, malice or lenience. What would happen if we allowed all the possible questions to be asked? And tell me sincerely, what is a purpose of your approach? Yeah, I know, full disclosure. But please answer to the point, what can the opponents gain by asking about agreements irrelevant to the auction? If they need something and will explain to me why is it important for them, I will of course fulfill their wish. If I don't, then the TD may adjust. I don't really see any problem but of course I'll wait for your answer to my question. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 17:57:00 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 17:57:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation References: <4934FB62.4040600@meteo.fr><000d01c95484$6d957f20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493561B7.5050107@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003101c9549e$febc77a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [AG] perhaps, if there isn't any law to support your desire for a rectification, it could mean that your desire isn't justified. There simply isn't any law to disallow overinformation, unless "could have known" or UI rears its head. The comment made East select the club lead, but the fact that there was damage is purely incidental. Say North leads a spade out of turn, and East disallows a Spade lead by South. South, who was about to lead a spade but may not, selects the killing Heart lead. Bad luck for East. Most of the time, however, East would gain from using what the events provided him with. We are in a similar situation. [/AG] [MB] Yes, that convinced me. It can be regarded as an obverse of misbid. In some cases misbid causes harm, here correction caused it. Bad luck for the opponents. This logic is sound and I agree, but I still would strongly admonish South for his correction and advise him to do what the Laws order him to do and not to try to be overhelpful. As I've already noted - the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Thanks Alain, regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 18:05:31 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:05:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl><493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> <49355D1B.4080002@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003f01c954a0$2f33e340$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > unfounded prior convictions. > > > > Upon re-reading, this wording seems wrong. > I did not wish to imply that you had done jail-time. > I hope my intended meaning got accross. Heh, and I was just preparing a suit with my lawyer :-( The plural was mistaken, I was only once convicted for shooting the TD, who dared to give a ruling against my team. Later the Highest Court cancelled my 25-year sentence stating that the shooting of the TD can be only penalized with 3 IMP PP. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 18:11:53 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:11:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> <0D6A043D-E823-4BED-822D-AC76A2B493CD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004701c954a1$12921080$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > According to Maciej's interpretation of L20, you are entitled to know > what your opponents' Blackwood resposes are only if they deign to > provide that information on their CC, but not otherwise. I fear that > the lesson to be drawn is that it is to your potential advantage to > be certain that only the absolute minimum of unambiguously required > information appears on your CC. Reductio ad absurdum. First - you are entitled to know what my Blackwood responses are when Blackwood is used in the auction. Show me an example when this knowledge would be necessary in other situation (but excluding misexplanations) and I will reconsider. Second - minimum of required information on CC would result in much more losses caused by adverse MI rulings than the supposed benefit from hiding something. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 18:30:19 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:30:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership > understandings to opponents before commencing play against > them" [L40A1(b)]. Does Maciej actually do that? Note that it says > "its partnership understandings", not "those partnership > understandings it thinks are important" nor "those partnership > understandings it can fit into the spaces on the CC". My agreements are available for the opponents. They can ask what they wish before the play commence. I'll answer every question, even regarding the agreement that is used once a year. > Right. So mustn't L40A1(b) mean that everything that "can't be > disclosed that way" must be disclosed some other way? Certainly. So it will be, if it becomes relevant. I really don't see any problem. > Edgar Kaplan explained the objective of full disclosure as follows: > Imagine that every player had a complete and detailed written > explanation of all of his opponents' partnership agreements, which he > was able to consult at any time without his partner or his opponents > being aware that he was doing so. Disclosure regulations should be > designed to emulate this ideal as closely as possible. > > I happen to agree with Mr. Kaplan. If that makes me a "fanatic of > full disclosure" I accept the designation happily. I happen to agree with him too. But since his proposed ideal can't be reached, we have to satisfy ourselves with imperfect solutions. And I'm still waiting for an example when disclosing something irrelevant to the current auction may be important for the opponents at that time. I'd wish you found such an example instead of offending me by undermining my ethics and compliance with the Laws. For your information - I was never ruled against because of hiding anything from my opponents. Last MI ruling I had, happened when I was a beginner. I have never had UI ruling against me. Enough said. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 18:39:32 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:39:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <001101c9549c$ae5f91e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F71.1060209@skynet.be><001101c952f5$bf880f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932BB53.3070407@skynet.be><001601c9530c$42111ae0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49339C0D.2080701@skynet.be><004301c9539f$a7fc3900$15844c59@chello.pl><4933DE33.4030407@skynet.be><00b601c953bc$1db30b80$15844c59@chello.pl> <2C2732D2-0740-4FAD-9EE2-FE09BE8AD0E1@starpower.net> <001101c9549c$ae5f91e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Bystry wrote: >>> No. That's what Bob was asking about. I always stated that the Laws >>> do not >>> require to disclose the agreements irrelevant to the auction - >>> during the >>> auction and during the play. The appropriate time is before the >>> first board >>> is played and during the whole board there is a SC available. So >>> everything >>> you wrote was under the misconception. > >> Wouldn't that mean that the information to which the opponents were >> "entitled" was a function of how you filled out your SC? In real >> life, some pairs provide the minimum required information, while >> others cover the form with fine print detailing lots of additional >> agreements. RAs design SCs/CCs to cover the most important aspects >> of one's system in the limited available space. > > Eric, try to understand my point of view. I'm a supporter of the > idea of > full disclosure. But I'm also a supporter of common sense and > logic. And I > know that belief in absoluteness of anything often leads to > fanaticism, > which certainly is not in accord of sense and logic. > > The lawmakers seem to agree with me - they require pre-disclosure > of the > most important agreements and system overwiew - to enable the > opponents to > prepare for the most common auctions and establish some counter- > agreements > if they need so. Then, during the auction and play, only relevant > parts of > the system have to be disclosed. After the board the opponents have > a right > to call the TD and to raise their objections if they feel that > something was > not disclosed to them. > > Now let's leave the Laws for the moment. You deem that the > opponents should > always have an access to all the agreements. Right, honorable goal. > But in > our imperfect world we have to satisfy ourselves with imperfect > solutions. > These solutions have to be sensible and workable, that's what is > important. > > Following your approach we'll come closer to the ideal of full > disclosure > but at the price of creating chaos and unpleasantness for many > players. Why > should anyone be put off his stride or feel harassed because of the > whim of > his opponents? Even nowadays we experience many unnecessary or absurd > questions, asked because of curiosity, malice or lenience. What > would happen > if we allowed all the possible questions to be asked? I don't see where we have to pay any such price. "Creating chaos", "unpleasantness", "put[ting an opponent] off his stride" or causing an opponent to "feel harassed" are all patently illegal, and we are fully equipped to deal with them. Every day we find ourselves in situations -- in both bridge and real life -- where we have certain rights but are prohibited from exercising them in an abusive or irresponsible manner. WTP? > And tell me sincerely, what is a purpose of your approach? To be as helpful and forthcoming as possible, so as to insure that my opponents, faced with the task of trying to follow my side's bidding, have as much information about my partnership understandings as I do. Is there something wrong with that? > Yeah, I know, > full disclosure. But please answer to the point, what can the > opponents gain > by asking about agreements irrelevant to the auction? If they need > something > and will explain to me why is it important for them, I will of course > fulfill their wish. If I don't, then the TD may adjust. I don't > really see > any problem but of course I'll wait for your answer to my question. If my opponents genuinely believe that a particular piece of information about my partnership understandings would be relevant or useful to them in understanding our auction, I don't see how the law gives me the privilege of summarily overruling them just because I happen to disagree with their assessment. Of course, if I think they are asking for info that is obviously useless to them just to harass or disconcert me, I will call the TD and let him decide. But that would be his call, not mine. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 18:37:52 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:37:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl> <066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Of course not. Try it in my game and you'll be summarily thrown > out. I can find half a dozen justifications in L74 alone. That > doesn't mean you don't have the rights granted to you by L40A1(b), > only that you have an obligation not to be illegally abusive in > exercising them. > You could just as easily, every time it is your turn to call, demand > a full restatement of the auction complete with alerts and > explanations. Try it in my game and you'll be summarily thrown out. > I can find half a dozen justifications in L74 alone. That doesn't > mean you don't have the rights granted to you by L20B, only that you > have an obligation not to be illegally abusive in exercising them. > > Is this really a problem? The problem is that *the Laws or RA regulations* should decide what and when has to be disclosed, not any, even most knowledgable TD. And your (mis)interpretation of L40A1(b) would result in a redundancy of L20F1. Fortunately the lawmakers didn't share your opinion. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 19:24:59 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:24:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <004701c954a1$12921080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com> <0D6A043D-E823-4BED-822D-AC76A2B493CD@starpower.net> <004701c954a1$12921080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <745FB31D-CF3F-4FE9-A2C3-FFF193B42D15@starpower.net> On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:11 PM, Bystry wrote: >> According to Maciej's interpretation of L20, you are entitled to know >> what your opponents' Blackwood resposes are only if they deign to >> provide that information on their CC, but not otherwise. I fear that >> the lesson to be drawn is that it is to your potential advantage to >> be certain that only the absolute minimum of unambiguously required >> information appears on your CC. > > Reductio ad absurdum. > > First - you are entitled to know what my Blackwood responses are when > Blackwood is used in the auction. Show me an example when this > knowledge > would be necessary in other situation (but excluding > misexplanations) and I > will reconsider. OK. My opponents have a strong slam-try auction and decide to stop at 5C. Their CC has "RKCB" checked. It sounds to me like they might have bid 6C if they could be assured that they weren't missing two key cards. So I decide that the 5C bidder might well have bid 4NT rather than 5C if he were able to pass a zero-or-three KC 5C response, but if his partner would have to bid 5D to show no KCs he could not have risked 4NT and so might have simply guessed to sign off at 5C hoping for no KC opposite. The difference, obviously, could affect both my opening lead and my subsequent defense. Will that do? > Second - minimum of required information on CC would result in much > more > losses caused by adverse MI rulings than the supposed benefit from > hiding > something. I think this is a language problem. By "minimum of... required information" I mean only that information which they are required by regulation to write down on their CC, and no more. Either I am entitled to more, in which case I must be able to obtain it on request, or I am not entitled to more, in which case I have no claim to an MI ruling if I don't get it. There are only two possibilities here: (1) I am entitled to knowledge of all of my opponents' understandings, or (2) I am entitled to knowledge of only those partnership understandings which my RA requires be written on my opponents' CC. The answer shouldn't depend on what extra information these particular opponents chose to put on their CC (perhaps as an aid to their own memories from session to session) beyond what they were required to. If it did, then it would be to their obvious advantage to offer only the least they could get away with. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 19:38:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:38:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:30 PM, Bystry wrote: >> "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership >> understandings to opponents before commencing play against >> them" [L40A1(b)]. Does Maciej actually do that? Note that it says >> "its partnership understandings", not "those partnership >> understandings it thinks are important" nor "those partnership >> understandings it can fit into the spaces on the CC". > > My agreements are available for the opponents. They can ask what > they wish > before the play commence. I'll answer every question, even > regarding the > agreement that is used once a year. > >> Right. So mustn't L40A1(b) mean that everything that "can't be >> disclosed that way" must be disclosed some other way? > > Certainly. So it will be, if it becomes relevant. I really don't > see any > problem. > >> Edgar Kaplan explained the objective of full disclosure as follows: >> Imagine that every player had a complete and detailed written >> explanation of all of his opponents' partnership agreements, which he >> was able to consult at any time without his partner or his opponents >> being aware that he was doing so. Disclosure regulations should be >> designed to emulate this ideal as closely as possible. >> >> I happen to agree with Mr. Kaplan. If that makes me a "fanatic of >> full disclosure" I accept the designation happily. > > I happen to agree with him too. But since his proposed ideal can't be > reached, we have to satisfy ourselves with imperfect solutions. > > And I'm still waiting for an example when disclosing something > irrelevant to > the current auction may be important for the opponents at that time. > > I'd wish you found such an example instead of offending me by > undermining my > ethics and compliance with the Laws. For your information - I was > never > ruled against because of hiding anything from my opponents. Last MI > ruling I > had, happened when I was a beginner. I have never had UI ruling > against me. > Enough said. Oh dear. I certainly intended no offense, nor any reflection on Maciej's ethics or compliance. I wrote "Does Maciej actually do that?" as a rhetorical question. Of course he doesn't. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else. Not even Meckstroth and Rodwell, who actually possess a complete, written, several-hundred-page-long detailed description of their complete system and so could, unlike the rest of us, readily do so if they chose to. Nobody expects anybody to fully conform to the first sentence of L40A1(b) literally, but that doesn't abrogate the rights or obligations it sets forth. That we don't -- indeed can't -- "actually do that" was precisely the point. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 19:59:56 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 13:59:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl> <066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net> <005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:37 PM, Bystry wrote: >> Of course not. Try it in my game and you'll be summarily thrown >> out. I can find half a dozen justifications in L74 alone. That >> doesn't mean you don't have the rights granted to you by L40A1(b), >> only that you have an obligation not to be illegally abusive in >> exercising them. >> You could just as easily, every time it is your turn to call, demand >> a full restatement of the auction complete with alerts and >> explanations. Try it in my game and you'll be summarily thrown out. >> I can find half a dozen justifications in L74 alone. That doesn't >> mean you don't have the rights granted to you by L20B, only that you >> have an obligation not to be illegally abusive in exercising them. >> >> Is this really a problem? > > The problem is that *the Laws or RA regulations* should decide what > and when > has to be disclosed, not any, even most knowledgable TD. L40A1(b) says what has to be disclosed: "its partnership understandings". RA regulations can only determine how this is to be done; they cannot repeal the requirement. > And your (mis)interpretation of L40A1(b) would result in a > redundancy of > L20F1. Fortunately the lawmakers didn't share your opinion. As someone else pointed out, there is no redundancy in the actual wording of L20F1; the apparent redundancy appears only in the WBFLC's leopard-loo minute, in which the word "only" has been inserted into the original text of the law, in apparent contradiction to the legislative history of L20 and the disclosure laws in general. And even that redundancy exists only if one interprets "relevance" as the relevance of the meaning of the subject call to the auction rather than the relevance of the partnership agreement in question to the meaning of the subject call, which seems to me to be an equally valid interpretation. And even if we were to grant Maciej's position, that one is only entitled to information about partnership agreements that are "relevant" to the ongoing auction at the moment of the request, wouldn't it be up to "even [the least] knowledgable TD", rather than to you, me, Maciej, or the man behind the tree, to decide which those were? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 20:19:37 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:19:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com><0D6A043D-E823-4BED-822D-AC76A2B493CD@starpower.net><004701c954a1$12921080$15844c59@chello.pl> <745FB31D-CF3F-4FE9-A2C3-FFF193B42D15@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000f01c954b2$eb1c92c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > OK. My opponents have a strong slam-try auction and decide to stop > at 5C. Their CC has "RKCB" checked. It sounds to me like they might > have bid 6C if they could be assured that they weren't missing two > key cards. So I decide that the 5C bidder might well have bid 4NT > rather than 5C if he were able to pass a zero-or-three KC 5C > response, but if his partner would have to bid 5D to show no KCs he > could not have risked 4NT and so might have simply guessed to sign > off at 5C hoping for no KC opposite. The difference, obviously, > could affect both my opening lead and my subsequent defense. Will > that do? Nay. That falls under "relevant alternative calls" and "relevant inferences". I would disclose it without any objections. > I think this is a language problem. By "minimum of... required > information" I mean only that information which they are required by > regulation to write down on their CC, and no more. Either I am > entitled to more, in which case I must be able to obtain it on > request, or I am not entitled to more, in which case I have no claim > to an MI ruling if I don't get it. There are only two possibilities > here: (1) I am entitled to knowledge of all of my opponents' > understandings, or (2) I am entitled to knowledge of only those > partnership understandings which my RA requires be written on my > opponents' CC. The answer shouldn't depend on what extra information > these particular opponents chose to put on their CC (perhaps as an > aid to their own memories from session to session) beyond what they > were required to. If it did, then it would be to their obvious > advantage to offer only the least they could get away with. Of course (1) is correct. But with one restriction - not all the information is available at every moment. The lawmakers stated it explicitly by writing L20F1. And sorry Eric, I don't believe that anyone will deliberately omit some information on CC because of the possibility of a mixup. In such cases they will anyway have a terrible score most of the time and trying to save 10-15% of the top seems unprofitable in comparison with standart MI/misexplanation TD rulings. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 20:41:51 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 20:41:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001501c954b6$06522e80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Oh dear. I certainly intended no offense, nor any reflection on > Maciej's ethics or compliance. I wrote "Does Maciej actually do > that?" as a rhetorical question. Of course he doesn't. Neither do > I. Neither does anyone else. Not even Meckstroth and Rodwell, who > actually possess a complete, written, several-hundred-page-long > detailed description of their complete system and so could, unlike > the rest of us, readily do so if they chose to. Nobody expects > anybody to fully conform to the first sentence of L40A1(b) literally, > but that doesn't abrogate the rights or obligations it sets forth. > That we don't -- indeed can't -- "actually do that" was precisely the > point. I didn't have "Does Maciej actually do that?" in mind. I understand what you were writing about. I simply have a feeling (I could be wrong) you're trying to create an impression that I advocate hiding something from the opponents. That's not true. I'll bet that our opinions what should be disclosed would be similar in 99% of cases. I object against giving unconditional right to ask the questions to the opponents. L20F1 is IMO truly well written to fulfill any reasonable wishes of the questioners. Call, alternative calls and inferences - it's hard to find anything at least slightly connected with the current auction that is not covered by this notions. But do you remember how our discussion started? You jumped on me that I don't want to treat questions about Blackwood as relevant when 4NT was bid as minors and misexplained. And this I will defend for ever and a day. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 2 21:20:45 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 15:20:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000f01c954b2$eb1c92c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com><0D6A043D-E823-4BED-822D-AC76A2B493CD@starpower.net><004701c954a1$12921080$15844c59@chello.pl> <745FB31D-CF3F-4FE9-A2C3-FFF193B42D15@starpower.net> <000f01c954b2$eb1c92c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <7CC8A281-E5C5-457A-AC97-5DE703A7B758@starpower.net> On Dec 2, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Bystry wrote: >> OK. My opponents have a strong slam-try auction and decide to stop >> at 5C. Their CC has "RKCB" checked. It sounds to me like they might >> have bid 6C if they could be assured that they weren't missing two >> key cards. So I decide that the 5C bidder might well have bid 4NT >> rather than 5C if he were able to pass a zero-or-three KC 5C >> response, but if his partner would have to bid 5D to show no KCs he >> could not have risked 4NT and so might have simply guessed to sign >> off at 5C hoping for no KC opposite. The difference, obviously, >> could affect both my opening lead and my subsequent defense. Will >> that do? > > Nay. That falls under "relevant alternative calls" and "relevant > inferences". I would disclose it without any objections. If so, then our difference of opinion matters only in the specific circumstances of the thread case, in which an opponent asks a player whose partner has offered an explanation of his bidding which he knows to be inapplicable according to his actual partnership understandings to explain what the call would mean in alternative circumstances in which it would, by actual partnershp agreement, be applicable. Maciej is readily prepared to answer the question under the circumstances of my example, and I am readily prepared to refuse to answer a question about the meaning of a call for which I do not have an agreement as to its meaning where applicable, so we are left with only the rather trivial case of something akin to Herman's minor- suit-takeout-explained-as-Blackwood example. As a practical matter, it won't much matter what we decide. as we're not likely to have to rule on such a case more than an average of 0.3 times per lifetime. I refuse to believe that the authors of TFLB wrote either L20 or L40 with these particular odd and unusual circumstances in mind, or that the "correct" answer can be found by parsing their words beyond the scope of their intention. >> I think this is a language problem. By "minimum of... required >> information" I mean only that information which they are required by >> regulation to write down on their CC, and no more. Either I am >> entitled to more, in which case I must be able to obtain it on >> request, or I am not entitled to more, in which case I have no claim >> to an MI ruling if I don't get it. There are only two possibilities >> here: (1) I am entitled to knowledge of all of my opponents' >> understandings, or (2) I am entitled to knowledge of only those >> partnership understandings which my RA requires be written on my >> opponents' CC. The answer shouldn't depend on what extra information >> these particular opponents chose to put on their CC (perhaps as an >> aid to their own memories from session to session) beyond what they >> were required to. If it did, then it would be to their obvious >> advantage to offer only the least they could get away with. > > Of course (1) is correct. But with one restriction - not all the > information > is available at every moment. The lawmakers stated it explicitly by > writing > L20F1. And sorry Eric, I don't believe that anyone will > deliberately omit > some information on CC because of the possibility of a mixup. In > such cases > they will anyway have a terrible score most of the time and trying > to save > 10-15% of the top seems unprofitable in comparison with standart > MI/misexplanation TD rulings. As has been pointed out, the legislative history of L20 strongly suggests that the ambiguous references to "relevance" that were added in 2008 are clarifications of the original broad intent rather than the introduction of a new, narrower substantive law. The alternative, admittedly seemingly supported by the rather odd WBFLC minute quoted here earlier, is to assume that after years of broadening its view of the obligation to provide full disclosure, and reflecting that from lawbook to lawbook, the WBF has now decided to turn 180o and move in the opposite direction, adding law that reduces what must be disclosed in some circumstances. Maciej may be right in his interpretation, but is obviously wrong if he insists that his interpretation is the only logical or possible way to read L20 and L40 in combination. Rather than attempt to parse what probably isn't there out of the exact words of TFLB, we might ask ourselves which makes more sense. If asked, during an auction, about the meaning of a call which did not actually occur during the auction, you should answer the question: (a) if you can give an unconditional answer without regard to your hand, the auction, or anything else that wouldn't be known "before commencing play against [your current opponents]", or (b) if, in addition to the above, you decide, subject to subsequent review and potential score adjustment by the TD or AC, that the information the opponents have asked for is sufficiently "relevant" for them. Personally, I find (a) a lot more comfortable and a lot more straightforward to deal with from all three possible perspectives: asker, askee, and TD/AC. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 21:53:48 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:53:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > L40A1(b) says what has to be disclosed: "its partnership > understandings". RA regulations can only determine how this is to be > done; they cannot repeal the requirement. Eric, repeating arguments about L40A1(b) won't help. This Law contains clear words - "before commencing play". What's more, "make available" is a very loose notion. So yes, RA may demand that the pair has a SC/CC with mandatory set of described agreements but no, they can't deny the opponents the access to any other agreements. So the opponents are allowed to ask suplementary questions and they should get needed responses. But, all this may happen only "before commencing play" according to L40A1(b). I'm fully aware that some of blmlers like to nitpick, twist the meanings of the words, bend the laws to fit their ideas. I'm disappointed that you're trying to do this because after reading archivized emails I considered you to be one of the voices of reason. > As someone else pointed out, there is no redundancy in the actual > wording of L20F1; the apparent redundancy appears only in the WBFLC's > leopard-loo minute, in which the word "only" has been inserted into > the original text of the law, in apparent contradiction to the > legislative history of L20 and the disclosure laws in general. I'm sure they added this "only" to stop barrack-room lawyers from bending this law. Look, what do L20F1 say? It enumerates three things to which the opponents are entitled, using construction: A, B and C. For me it's clear - only A, B, C are subjects of this law. But apparently there are some people who try to argue that A, B and C are only the examples and L20F1 certainly has a broader scope of application. Yeah, sure. I invite Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones to my home. I have apples, oranges, bananas and kiwis. I say to Smith and Jones "you are allowed to eat apples, oranges and bananas". Smith conforms to my wish. But Jones eats kiwis too and later claims that if I wanted to forbid eating kiwis I should shave said "only apples, oranges and bananas". Smith is welcome to be my guest. Jones is threwn out through my door with the kick in the a** for goodbye. And the same should happen to the people who try to read something in the Laws which isn't there, only to find anything that fits their ideas. > And even that redundancy exists only if one interprets "relevance" as > the relevance of the meaning of the subject call to the auction > rather than the relevance of the partnership agreement in question to > the meaning of the subject call, which seems to me to be an equally > valid interpretation. Excuse me but I have no idea what are you writing about. I just use simple English and logic: "about relevant alternative calls available that were not made" - 1S-pass-2S (questioned) - 1NT is relevant (could be forcing with miniraise), 2C may be relevant (Drury), 3S may be relevant (preemptive, limit). 4NT is not relevant, 4D is not relevant, 7NT is not relevant. "about relevant inferences from the choice of action" - 1S-pass-2C (GF, semi-nat)-pass-2S-pass-2NT (questioned) - asks for opener's shape, *if made with spade support, it suggests (but doesn't promise) real clubs, otherwise could bid 3S* > And even if we were to grant Maciej's position, that one is only > entitled to information about partnership agreements that are > "relevant" to the ongoing auction at the moment of the request, > wouldn't it be up to "even [the least] knowledgable TD", rather than > to you, me, Maciej, or the man behind the tree, to decide which those > were? If the opponents feel damaged by a lack of appropriate disclosure, they surely may call the TD and he'll decide whether something was relevant or not. But he has to be bound by L20F1, not by his idea of what should be in the Laws but isn't. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Dec 2 22:29:52 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:29:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Dialogue Bystry-Eric Message-ID: <4935A8D0.2090704@aol.com> Ahoj! Allow me to express the pleasure and enjoyment I have had in following the dialogue between Bystry and Eric. No insults, no absolute statements ("You are wrong", etc.) and careful reading and consideration of the other's position. Very enjoyable. My feeling is that they are very close to full agreement and there is little separating their positions. One additional note: much of the discussion has been about what the other side is entitled to know. My I suggest that it is also possible to volunteer information to which, in your opinion, the other side may not be entitled? And I suspect that many (most?) of us do that. Ciao, JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 22:42:38 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 08:42:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] False card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c95466$601cd730$20568590$@com> Message-ID: Last night in a key event equivalent to the Bermuda Bowl; the penultimate Swiss match in the Consolation section of a Canberra Bridge Club teams championship. :-) Imps Dlr: North Vul: North-South The Aussie Acol bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1S Pass 1NT Pass Pass Pass Dummy KQT42 K AT6 QJ94 Declarer A7 7653 9873 AT8 West leads the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, East's five and declarer's ace. At this point declarer asks East about the system meaning of the nine of spades. East replies that West is promising the ten of spades but denying another higher honour. So at this point all four players know that West's opening lead is a false card. At trick two declarer leads the seven of spades, and the trey appears from West. Declarer now has to decide whether West's opening lead was a falsecard from: (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). At the table declarer guesses wrong, one off. East-West narrowly win the equivalent-to-Bermuda-Bowl-event, and their octogenarian kibitzer is wild with applause. :-) However, from East's point of view there was a distinct possibility that West's opening lead was not a false card, but a memory failure. If the hypothetical 2018 De Wael Lawbook had been in effect last night (which has as its hypothetical touchstone "do not provide UI to partner"), then East's De Wael answer to declarer's question would have been either: (x) the nine of spades denies a higher honour, or (y) the nine of spades promises a higher honour, often but not necessarily the ten, depending on whether or not East held the jack of spades. After such an answer declarer could not possibly misguess the spades, which serves as a counter- example to the assertion that De Wael infractions of the actual 2008 Lawbook necessarily seek to gain a score advantage for De Wael acolytes. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Dec 2 23:03:58 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:03:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation Message-ID: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> Didn't South actually make an unintentional psyche (by forgetting the system)? Fully legal and no reason to explain it before play. But that hardly matters: the question is if the superfluous info influenced the opening lead. Would East have been more likely not to lead a club without it? If yes, adjust; if no do not. And to Herman's objection that David B. used his name without first asking permission. First reaction: so what? Second reaction (does not contradict the first): there is an old American saying: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 2 23:01:39 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:01:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><49347568.5000006@meadows.pair.com><0D6A043D-E823-4BED-822D-AC76A2B493CD@starpower.net><004701c954a1$12921080$15844c59@chello.pl><745FB31D-CF3F-4FE9-A2C3-FFF193B42D15@starpower.net><000f01c954b2$eb1c92c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <7CC8A281-E5C5-457A-AC97-5DE703A7B758@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005701c954c9$8d90b340$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [snipped, agreed] > As has been pointed out, the legislative history of L20 strongly > suggests that the ambiguous references to "relevance" that were added > in 2008 are clarifications of the original broad intent rather than > the introduction of a new, narrower substantive law. The > alternative, admittedly seemingly supported by the rather odd WBFLC > minute quoted here earlier, is to assume that after years of > broadening its view of the obligation to provide full disclosure, and > reflecting that from lawbook to lawbook, the WBF has now decided to > turn 180o and move in the opposite direction, adding law that reduces > what must be disclosed in some circumstances. Maciej may be right in > his interpretation, but is obviously wrong if he insists that his > interpretation is the only logical or possible way to read L20 and > L40 in combination. I don't insist that my interpretation is the only logical one and certainly not the only possible one. I simply claim that for *me* this logic is clear. It may be caused by my general way of thinking (I'm strict-minded). For me "before commencing play" means just that - before the play commences. Not "generally before commencing play, but...". The same goes for "relevant", "indicate" and many other things. When I'm not sure I use to factorize something and then see if my opinion is supported by the basic, elemental logic. If it is, I don't search for other possibilities, why should I? If the lawmakers write any law in a way that it later has two different logical meanings, that means they did a bad job. As to the reasons for the change of mind of WBFLC (if there was such, I don't know that), I can only guess. It's quite possible they were disturbed by the excess of unnecessary questioning in today's bridge. > Rather than attempt to parse what probably isn't there out of the > exact words of TFLB, we might ask ourselves which makes more sense. > If asked, during an auction, about the meaning of a call which did > not actually occur during the auction, you should answer the question: > > (a) if you can give an unconditional answer without regard to your > hand, the auction, or anything else that wouldn't be known "before > commencing play against [your current opponents]", or > > (b) if, in addition to the above, you decide, subject to subsequent > review and potential score adjustment by the TD or AC, that the > information the opponents have asked for is sufficiently "relevant" > for them. > > Personally, I find (a) a lot more comfortable and a lot more > straightforward to deal with from all three possible perspectives: > asker, askee, and TD/AC. I understand and respect your preferences. It seems that we differ in this point. Maybe it's caused by the difference in habits of the players in our surroundings. Here the players (with exclusion of most experts and many advanced) ask many unnecessary questions, not interested in bidding or even following the auction, they just do it from mere curiosity or boredom. I find this very annoying, it spoils my enjoyment of the game. And I'm not trying to imagine what would happen if they were allowed to ask any questions they want, it's too scary. If all the opponents were reasonable and asked only about important things I would join you in supporting (a). As it is in reality, I prefer (b), although I'm always ready to go slightly outside its border if I believe that my opponents really need some additional information. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 2 23:06:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:06:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] New, narrower substantive law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <7CC8A281-E5C5-457A-AC97-5DE703A7B758@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >As has been pointed out, the legislative history of L20 >strongly suggests that the ambiguous references to >"relevance" that were added in 2008 are clarifications of >the original broad intent rather than the introduction of a >new, narrower substantive law. Extract from 1997 Law 20F1: "...a full explanation of the opponents' auction..." Corresponding extract from 2007 Law 20F1: "...an explanation of the opponents' prior auction..." Richard Hills quibbles: The deletion of the word "full" and the addition of the word "prior" seem to me to be a new, narrower substantive Law. If Stayman could not possibly have occurred in the **prior** auction, then a question about Stayman is outside the scope of a Law 20F1 question. However, I would choose to **voluntarily** answer a question about my partnership's major-promising Simple Stayman, in accordance with the WBF Code of Practice advice permitting a generous attitude to the opponents. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From john at asimere.com Tue Dec 2 23:19:36 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 22:19:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Dialogue Bystry-Eric References: <4935A8D0.2090704@aol.com> Message-ID: <174D9838116C43C9A86ACC187D37321E@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Easterson" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 9:29 PM Subject: [blml] Dialogue Bystry-Eric > Ahoj! Allow me to express the pleasure and enjoyment I have had in > following the dialogue between Bystry and Eric. No insults, no absolute > statements ("You are wrong", etc.) and careful reading and consideration > of the other's position. Very enjoyable. My feeling is that they are > very close to full agreement and there is little separating their > positions. > One additional note: much of the discussion has been about what the > other side is entitled to know. My I suggest that it is also possible > to volunteer information to which, in your opinion, the other side may > not be entitled? And I suspect that many (most?) of us do that. Ciao, JE > I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't hold last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd been conscious of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst out laughing and said "well done" Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're describing the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but that's what we do. john > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 3 00:28:39 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:28:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Dialogue Bystry-Eric In-Reply-To: <4935A8D0.2090704@aol.com> References: <4935A8D0.2090704@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:29:52 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > One additional note: much of the discussion has been about what the > other side is entitled to know. My I suggest that it is also possible > to volunteer information to which, in your opinion, the other side may > not be entitled? And I suspect that many (most?) of us do that. Ciao, The laws should probably try to describe correct procedure. I don't think we should rely on voluntary behavior to fix problems in the laws. Also, unless I am reading the overinformation thread wrong, there are directors who will rule against you if the opps are damaged by your overinformation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 01:06:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:06:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson (parallel "Dialogue Bystry-Eric" thread): >>>One additional note: much of the discussion has been about what >>>the other side is entitled to know. My I suggest that it is >>>also possible to volunteer information to which, in your >>>opinion, the other side may not be entitled? And I suspect >>>that many (most?) of us do that. Ciao, JE John (MadDog) Probst (also parallel "Dialogue Bystry-Eric" thread): >>I happily spent a couple of minutes describing a hand I didn't >>hold last night. Bore no resemblance at all, in fact, but I'd >>been conscious of that. After I faced my hand my opponent burst >>out laughing and said "well done" >> >>Footnote: It's difficult to keep a straight face when you're >>describing the hand you've bid rather than the one you hold, but >>that's what we do. john Richard Hills: Yes, on several occasions I have misbid (but immediately realised this as soon as I did so) and partner has coincidentally given the corresponding misexplanation. During the correction period I then ethically provided the system explanation, and equally ethically I then did _not_ volunteer that partner and I had been temporarily on the same mistaken wavelength. Jeff Easterson (this "overinformation" thread): >Didn't South actually make an unintentional psyche (by forgetting >the system)? Fully legal and no reason to explain it before play. >But that hardly matters: the question is if the superfluous info >influenced the opening lead. > >Would East have been more likely not to lead a club without it? >If yes, adjust; if no do not. Richard Hills: It seems to me that the overinformation from the actual misbidding South would have to be an infraction of Law 72A, since in the long run an overinforming declarer or dummy will not "obtain a higher score" by waving their cards in the faces of the defenders. Law 73D2, initial phrase: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark..." Richard Hills: On the facts as provided, the opening leader was correctly informed about the opposing partnership understandings. The opening leader was also correctly informed that the subsequent superfluous info was not an attempt to change information about partnership understandings, but rather a correct description of a misbid. Since the opening leader was **not misled about the opponents' understandings** nor about the actual cards in the misbidder's hand, it seems to me that the opening leader was not damaged. ** Herman, take note of one of our key differences on how to apply the current 2007 Lawbook. Oops, sorry for using your name. :-) ** Jeff Easterson (this "overinformation" thread): >And to Herman's objection that David B. used his name without >first asking permission. >First reaction: so what? >Second reaction (does not contradict the first): there is an old >American saying: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the >kitchen. Richard Hills: At least David Burn spelt "Herman" correctly. When I was at high school my friends gave me a wretchedly misspelt nickname. Best wishes Wretched Hills -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Dec 3 01:13:17 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:13:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> Message-ID: <4935CF1D.1080207@verizon.net> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Didn't South actually make an unintentional psyche (by forgetting the > system)? Fully legal and no reason to explain it before play. > But that hardly matters: the question is if the superfluous info > influenced the opening lead. Would East have been more likely not to > lead a club without it? If yes, adjust; if no do not. > > > What Law allows this adjustment? If the psych is fully legal, who cares what effect it had on the play? It can't be adjusted. As far as I can tell, an adjustment can occur if the player who gave the superfluous information could have known at the time of the infraction that it might work to his benefit. Giving the opponent a correct description of his hand is more likely to work to his detriment. There is clearly no intent to mislead or deceive. The information just happened to work to the other side's disadvantage through blind luck. No grounds for adjustment there. A PP for failing to follow 20.F.4 is about the only penalty that can be administered, as far as I can tell (there is no statement in the original post that the TD was called to correct the MI given to W). Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 02:01:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:01:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493510F3.1000702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Ogden Nash: I give you now Professor Twist, A conscientious scientist. Trustees exclaimed, "He never bungles!" And sent him off to distant jungles. Camped on a tropic riverside, One day he missed his loving bride. She had, the guide informed him later, Been eaten by an alligator. Professor Twist could not but smile. "You mean," he said, "a crocodile." David Burn: >>Utter nonsense. Down one, and South disqualified. What in >>blazes did South think he was doing? Alain Gottcheiner: >In my youth, I was told it was not necessary, but always >appreciated, to state, as declarer or dummy, that your >hand doesn't conform to the explanation, even if the >latter was right. > >Now you tell me this risks disqualification ? What do you >exactly want ? Giving crooks good reason to hide their >agreements ? Then you're right. Richard Hills: Alain's argument is Twisted to a point of Fowler, "Modern English Usage": "_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. *Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right." Richard Hills: David Burn is here arguing that intentionally disclosing a non-agreement as an agreement, in order to pick up a slam swing, risks disqualification. (A correct statement of principle, but not necessarily congruent with the specific facts of the actual case.) While Alain is saying that disclosure inconsistent with partner's correct explanation is appreciated, since to do otherwise will give crooks good reason to hide their agreements. Que? Lying about one's own agreements encourages crooks to be truthful about theirs??? And "In my youth" statements are irrelevant to a 2007 Lawbook which contains a new and powerful 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." Nowhere does a "strict accordance with the Laws" require a description of cards which do not conform with partner's correct explanation. Indeed, specifically suggesting otherwise is the 1997 footnote promoted to full 2007 Law: Law 75: "...Here there is no infraction of Law, since East-West did receive an accurate description of the North-South agreement; they have no claim to an accurate description of the North-South hands..." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Wed Dec 3 03:11:41 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:11:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> Eric Landau wrote: > Oh dear. I certainly intended no offense, nor any reflection on > Maciej's ethics or compliance. I wrote "Does Maciej actually do > that?" as a rhetorical question. Of course he doesn't. Neither do > I. Neither does anyone else. Not even Meckstroth and Rodwell, who > actually possess a complete, written, several-hundred-page-long > detailed description of their complete system Not true! I had heard this urban myth and so I asked Eric Rodwell about it. He laughed and said not so, and that it wouldn't do any good anyway, as Meckstroth wouldn't read it if they had such notes. (Urban rumors are hard to kill, aren't they?) FWIW, you can count me among the alleged 10% who side with Maciej and Sven and others here who think that all you are entitled to know is what your opponents' bids or alternative bids mean (i.e., their agreements) in the auction that has occurred. And I will go further, as I vote that this is the best way to go. As Maciej has pointed out, you have already gained an advantage (unearned) by knowing that your opponents have had a bidding foul-up. I see no reason why some future laws should give you any additional unearned advantage. I'm puzzled as to why you, Robert Frick et al think you deserve such added advantage. > and so could, unlike the rest of us, readily do so if they chose to. > Nobody expects anybody to fully conform to the first sentence of > L40A1(b) literally, but that doesn't abrogate the rights or > obligations it sets forth. That we don't -- indeed can't -- "actually > do that" was precisely the point. > From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Dec 3 04:16:03 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:16:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4935F9F3.4000809@talktalk.net> Suppose, in the original example, at the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, rather than *describe* what he meant by his bidding, dummy had *exposed* his entire hand -- the *ultimate disclosure*. Would most BLMlers still impose a *PP*? Would some *disqualify* him from the competition? From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 3 04:43:59 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:43:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:11:41 -0500, Robert Park wrote: > As Maciej has pointed out, you have already gained an advantage > (unearned) by knowing that your opponents have had a bidding foul-up. I > see no reason why some future laws should give you any additional > unearned advantage. I'm puzzled as to why you, Robert Frick et al think > you deserve such added advantage. Hi Robert. I have a preference for divulgence when I am playing. I like the process of building up a picture of declarer's hand from the bidding and play and then problem-solving what to do. Being blind is too much like pinochle or hearts. I don't like fooling or misleading the opponents with my bidding mistakes. And everyone tends to like what they are familiar with. But it is just a small preference. I can understand your preference. If 90% of the people thought like you, I think it would be very foolish to make a rule saying that everyone had to play my way. If opinion is split, then I think divulgence is friendly, charitable, and good for bridge. I think this new rule would work against the ACBL's attempts to promote divulgence. Also, it would be nice to have a simple rule. (Such as Max Bavin's "[a player] is entitled to know full details of his opponent's system.") Bob From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Dec 3 06:32:29 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:32:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Revoke, then claim Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081203162305.01c09760@mail.optusnet.com.au> A dear old lady is playing 3NT and with only winners left: S K H A K D A Q the diamond 6 is led from left. She puts the SK on the table and then displays her hand saying "they're all good". While I'm telling her that she has revoked, 1 trick penalty, and she should have put all her hand down at once for no problem, LHO says, wait a minute, if the SK has been played, I have a couple of spade winners now, can I get her to discard the AK of hearts? I would like him instead to "uncall" me, and give her the rest without penalty. Can I ask him to do so? Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 3 07:27:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:27:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4935F9F3.4000809@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie asked: >Suppose, in the original example, at the end of the auction, >but before the opening lead, rather than *describe* what he >meant by his bidding, dummy had *exposed* his entire hand -- >the *ultimate disclosure*. Would most BLMlers still impose a >*PP*? Would some *disqualify* him from the competition? Richard Hills replies: Yes, as the hypothetical Director I would impose a PP. The hypothetical South has intentionally infracted Law 24 by exposing 13 cards during the auction period. Suppose this event was a Calcutta tournament, with this hypothetical South having hypothetically bet on his opponents. Then for his illegal and apparently financially beneficial generosity to the opponents as the hypothetical Director I would disqualify the hypothetical South from the hypothetical competition. The fact that the hypothetical South's attempt to throw the match for financial gain has fortuitously failed, due to East finding the killing lead harder to find with extra but extraneous information, butters no parsnips. The hypothetical South has still hypothetically cheated, since Law 72A states that, "...The chief **object** is to obtain a higher score than other contestants..." _not_ "...The chief **outcome** is to obtain a higher score than other contestants..." What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 3 08:35:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:35:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Revoke, then claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081203162305.01c09760@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Katisha: "I have a left shoulder-blade that is a miracle of loveliness. People come miles to see it. My right elbow has a fascination that few can resist." Tony Musgrove: >A dear old lady is playing 3NT and with only winners left: > > S K > H A K > D A Q > >the diamond 6 is led from left. She puts the SK on the >table and then displays her hand saying "they're all good". > >While I'm telling her that she has revoked, 1 trick penalty, >and she should have put all her hand down at once for >no problem, LHO says, wait a minute, if the SK has been >played, I have a couple of spade winners now, can I get >her to discard the AK of hearts? > >I would like him instead to "uncall" me, and give her the >rest without penalty. Can I ask him to do so? > >Tony (Sydney) Law 10A: "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." Law 10C1: "When these Laws provide an option after an irregularity, the Director shall explain all the options available." WBF LC October minutes: "81C2 requires the Director to advise players of their rights and responsibilities under the laws. He confines such information to rights and responsibilities that are relevant to the situation he is dealing with." Law 81C5: "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 waive rectification for cause, in his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." Richard Hills: Put it all together, and the Director should mention Law 81C5 if and only if the Director believes there is a "cause" for waiving of rectification. Is a left shoulder-blade that is a miracle of loveliness a sufficient "cause"? In my opinion, no. Was the Director distracting her by announcing the tea break a sufficient "cause"? In my opinion, yes. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From AlLevy at aol.com Wed Dec 3 05:31:18 2008 From: AlLevy at aol.com (AlLevy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:31:18 EST Subject: [blml] Law 40 Message-ID: Law 40A1(b) Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. [this doesn't mean that an opponent must spend a 15 minutes reading the system card and system notes and asking detailed questions before play starts and then never again!? A two board 15-minute round would be gone before a bid was made. It is clear that the meaning is that a partnership must supply their opponents with their system (all partnership understandings) before play begins. This is in the form of a System Card, which includes system notes, i.e., ALL ITS PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING.] Law 40B2(c) ...a player may consult his opponent's system card (i) prior to commencement of the auction [at the time it must be supplied], (ii) ... and (iii) during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to call or play. So a partnership must supply ALL their understandings to the opponents before play [with a COMPLETE SC...the Law doesn't say selected partnership understandings] and the opponents may consult their opponents' COMPLETE understandings during the bidding and play. So, if the opponents must supply you with all their understandings before play and you can consult these understanding during play, it must be that you are entitled to find any understanding, not just relevant understandings, anytime 9when it is your turn to bid or play) , not just before play begins. Al In a message dated 12/2/2008 10:37:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, blml-request at amsterdamned.org writes: Send blml mailing list submissions to blml at amsterdamned.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blml-request at amsterdamned.org You can reach the person managing the list at blml-owner at amsterdamned.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of blml digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] (Robert Frick) 2. overinformation (Bystry) 3. Re: overinformation (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) 4. Re: overinformation (Herman De Wael) 5. Re: Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three (Eric Landau) 6. Re: Gamekeeper turmed poacher. (Herman De Wael) 7. Re: Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three (Eric Landau) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:43:44 -0500 From: "Robert Frick" Subject: Re: [blml] A question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:20:52 -0500, Peter Eidt wrote: > Max Bavin (from: 2008 TD Seminar in Torino, Law 27, > "Recommended Tournament Director procedure"): > 3. The LHO is not entitled to know what the offender was > trying to do when he made the IB (though he is entitled to > guess!). However, he is entitled to know full details of his > opponents system (e.g. he can ask supplementary questions) > and he is entitled to know the Law (e.g. he can seek clarification > of the Law from the Tournament Director [TD])." Many people interpreted L20F1 as Max did, as allowing players to know the full details of their opponent's system. My question is of interest only if you didn't believe that or if you want to answer according to the WBFLC rewrite of Law 20F1. The WBFLC's rewrite doesn't seem amgiguous to me. The 1C opening bid wasn't made and couldn't have been made. Therefore, players do not have to tell the opps the meaning of that call. "20F1 defines the manner in which, during the auction and play, a player may request and receive an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. At this time he is entitled to an explanation only of calls actually made, relevant available alternative calls not made, and any partnership understanding as to inferences from the choice of action among the foregoing. (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.)" ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 14:46:50 +0100 From: "Bystry" Subject: [blml] overinformation To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: <000d01c95484$6d957f20$15844c59 at chello.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hi, > i had to seat in an AC to adjudicate this case. it led to different > appreciations but the case is completed and nobody is no longer > protesting, so i think it can be debated. > > S-EO K64 > KQ643 > 93 > J75 > Q1073 J852 > 75 102 > QJ107 542 > A86 Q942 > A9 > AJ98 > AK86 > K103 > > 1D - 1H - > 3NT - 4C - > 4D - 4NT - > 5D - 6H - > - - > > N explained to his screenmate (E) 3NT as a heart raise with an > unbalanced hand, 4C as an ask and 4D as a club shortage, which was their > actual agreement. before east could lead, S lifted the screen to inform > east that he had just realized that he had forgotten their agreement and > that his hand would not conform to north's probable explication as he > had a balanced raise. E led a club, 12 tricks were won, E called the TD > then appealed his decision to let the score stand. in front of the AC, E > said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an > undue information which made the unfortunate club lead very attractive. That just shows that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Were I sitting E, I would follow his reasoning - if the club shortness at S looks fine for N, there is a strong probability that he's got nothing wasted in this suit - A, J, small ones. So club lead is unattractive, it seems better to start with a trump (or risky spade lead). But now, when I know that S doesn't have shortness, the club lead became more interesting - there is a possibility that the clubs can be thrown from the N hand on diamonds or from the S hand on spades. Of course the club lead can still be disastrous (as it was) but it's attractivity has risen. So in my opinion E was mislead by the gratitous comment from S and I would wish to adjust the score (although without any PP for S). But now, Houston, we have a problem. I'm struggling hard to find any Law which allows for the adjustment. Certainly S "couldn't have known", his correction would be disastrous for him if his partner had QJ sec of diamonds instead of J of clubs. So I'll wait for anyone who could help me to find proper solution (even those who don't want to adjust are invited) ;-) > jpr Regards Maciej ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:55:08 +0100 From: Jean-Pierre Rocafort Subject: Re: [blml] overinformation To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <49353E3C.5070007 at meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I resent my name being used in a post I have absolutely no opinion > about, and which does not even reflect my views. > > That's the second time, David. Stop it. it's not your name, dws is now the common noun of a thought process, just like cartesianism or aristotelian. you need to get accustomed to celebrity. jpr > > David Burn wrote: >> [JPR] >> >> E led a club, 12 tricks were won >> >> [DALB] >> >> Fixed by the dWS, as usual. If players would confine themselves to >> explaining their methods as the Laws require, rather than their own (or >> partner's presumed) holdings as the Laws forbid, bridge might be an easier >> game than it actually is. >> >> [JPR] >> >> E said he was pondering between a heart or a spade lead when he got an undue >> information >> >> [DALB] >> >> "Undue"? No, no - he got only what the logical Herman says he should get, >> which was an explanation of what South actually held despite the fact that >> South had not actually shown it. But well it was said by the philosopher: if >> only people wouldn't go about righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many >> wrongs to right. >> >> David Burn >> London, England -- _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 15:56:52 +0100 From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: [blml] overinformation To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <49354CB4.20005 at skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Jean-Pierre Rocafort wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I resent my name being used in a post I have absolutely no opinion >> about, and which does not even reflect my views. >> >> That's the second time, David. Stop it. > > it's not your name, dws is now the common noun of a thought process, > just like cartesianism or aristotelian. you need to get accustomed to > celebrity. > He did use the name Herman a bit further down as well! > jpr >> David Burn wrote: >>> "Undue"? No, no - he got only what the logical Herman says he should get, >>> which was an explanation of what South actually held despite the fact that >>> South had not actually shown it. But well it was said by the philosopher: if >>> only people wouldn't go about righting wrongs, there wouldn't be so many >>> wrongs to right. >>> >>> David Burn >>> London, England > ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:59:47 -0500 From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <2C2732D2-0740-4FAD-9EE2-FE09BE8AD0E1 at starpower.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Dec 1, 2008, at 8:52 AM, Bystry wrote: >> So you believe that L20F1 contains a limitation to the things that >> may >> be asked, while L20F2 contains no limitation at all? >> You believe that it was the intention of the lawmakers to limit the >> asking of irrelevant questions, but only during the auction, not >> during >> the play period? > > No. That's what Bob was asking about. I always stated that the Laws > do not > require to disclose the agreements irrelevant to the auction - > during the > auction and during the play. The appropriate time is before the > first board > is played and during the whole board there is a SC available. So > everything > you wrote was under the misconception. > >> Herman. Wouldn't that mean that the information to which the opponents were "entitled" was a function of how you filled out your SC? In real life, some pairs provide the minimum required information, while others cover the form with fine print detailing lots of additional agreements. RAs design SCs/CCs to cover the most important aspects of one's system in the limited available space. L40A1(b) would, absent its second sentence, require the RA to supply an infinitely long form on which all aspects of the partnership's understandings could be disclosed in detail. Obviously, that's impractical (although not impossible), so L40A1(b) gives the RA the right to determine which understandings are common and important enough to warrant mention in the limited space available. But neither the RA's design of the SC/CC nor the individual player's choice as to exactly what to write on it can affect the nature of the information ("its partnership understandings") that must be "ma[d]e available... to opponents". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2008 16:14:59 +0100 From: Herman De Wael Subject: Re: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: <493550F3.4060800 at skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Of course not. But then you should not criticise me for repeating over >> and over that I'm right. ***Either shut up or criticise and continue***. > > Who do you think you are? I demand an apology, otherwise pray we'll never > meet. > I don't see why I need to apologise, but I'll do so, hoping we shall one day meet and be able to have a civilised beer or three. But I maintain my criticism. You tell me you want out of the discussion because I do nothing but repeat my arguments. Yet you do the same. Moreover, IMO, my arguments are founded in reason and logic, whereas yours are merely repeats of unfounded statements. OK, that is just my opinion, so feel free to check about it. I gave one example of you doing no more than shout your conviction (*mand*da*to*ry*) without any foundation. I gave one example of me giving a reasoned argument (two opposing actions can both be acceptable) to which you did not even reply. Now I don't need you to continue the discussion. But if you then want to taint my reputation, it is I who will be demanding an apology. >> May I just cite one sentence where your manner was anything but pleasant >> and constructive. I write from memory: >> >> "SE's are *mand*da*to*ry*" (Bystry, some days ago) > > [And I realized that arguing with you causes my style to get closer to > yours, not to Adam's. I consider it to be very bad and I want to get back to > my normal, cultural behavior.] > I accept your apology on the tone. I get carried away into shouting myself some of the time. I did not mind the shouting, and did not comment on the tone (in my immediate reply), only on the content. >> You have every right to disagree with me. But when ***I write a detailed >> logical reasoning for my opinion,*** and ***you just shout back "no"***, I > have >> every right to feel that you have not done what you believe to be >> necessary: pleasant and constructive reasoning. > > [without spurious things like "mine is the only reason and the holy reason, > because if it's even yours too, my reason is still "miner" than "yourer", > and believe me that it's my reason which is "minest" ".] > I have never said that mine is the only reason. I only claim that my posts are attempts at reasoned conclusions from stated definitions. Your posts are (sometimes - there are other examples too) repeats of unfounded prior convictions. >> And no, I don't feel that this is symmetrical: all my posts contain >> detailed logical reasoning as to why I believe you are wrong. Yours do >> not always contain such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. See the >> example above. > > See quote above. > > No, Herman, you won't manage to provoke me to behave like you. One more > email like this and they all will land in my junk box. > Well, it is not my intention to provoke you. It is my intention to get you to follow the reasoning and pick away at it - or accept it. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Still wanting to have that beer one day, Herman. ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:35:33 -0500 From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Dec 1, 2008, at 5:09 PM, Bystry wrote: >> The Laws require you to "make available [your] partnership >> understandings to opponents before commencing play against >> them" [L40A1(b)]. What you are capable of explaining "before >> commencing play" does not depend on "*the* calls in *the* auction". >> You are not excused from fulfilling this explicit "duty" just because >> your opponents permitted the auction to start before realizing they >> would want some particular piece of the totality to the information >> to which L40A1(b) unamibiguously entitles them. "The RA specifies >> the manner in which this shall be done" does *not* mean that the RA >> may specify (implicitly or otherwise) that it not be done at all. > > Sorry Eric, but I don't know what are you talking about. Do you > accuse me of > hiding any information from my opponents? Do you know anything > about my way > of playing bridge to risk such statements? I'm fulfilling any > obligations > the Laws put on me. "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them" [L40A1(b)]. Does Maciej actually do that? Note that it says "its partnership understandings", not "those partnership understandings it thinks are important" nor "those partnership understandings it can fit into the spaces on the CC". > On my CC are all the agreements that are important. Of > course *everything* can't be disclosed that way. Right. So mustn't L40A1(b) mean that everything that "can't be disclosed that way" must be disclosed some other way? > So I explain anything which > is *relevant* to the actual auction. But I don't have any > obligation to > disclose anything during the auction/play which is irrelevant to > it. If you > think that I have to disclose what kind of Blackwood does my > partnership use > during the auction in which Blackwood wasn't bid, then show me the > Law that > forces me to do it. L40A1(b) says only about disclosing *before > commencing > play*. L20F1 says what has to be disclosed during the auction. > > I know from your historical emails that you are a fanatic of full > disclosure. I agree that it's very important. But it shouldn't > override any > other important things or common sense. Allowing the players to ask > during > the auction about irrelevant things would result in a total mess. > Think > about it - Blackwood can be played by my partnership in different ways > depending on different auctions. Do I have to disclose it all? Do I > have to > spend 2 minutes during the auction to say something which is > completely > unnecesary? Only because my opponents have a whim? No, I don't > think so and > the lawmakers didn't think so either. > > Full disclosure, as understood by some people, would sometimes lead > to worse > things than hiding something. E.g. I see no sense in explaining > that partner > forgot one sequence two months ago. It can only boggle opponents' > minds. > They will risk some action dependent on the hypotetical forget in > present > (thinking that I must have a reason to say something about it) and > they will > get a poor score. And although I wouldn't break any law this way I > would > feel morally responsible for their debacle. > > As in every case in our world, moderation is required with the > concept of > full disclosure. It shouldn't become a tool to mislead anybody or > to satisfy > somebody's whim. > >> Eric Landau Edgar Kaplan explained the objective of full disclosure as follows: Imagine that every player had a complete and detailed written explanation of all of his opponents' partnership agreements, which he was able to consult at any time without his partner or his opponents being aware that he was doing so. Disclosure regulations should be designed to emulate this ideal as closely as possible. I happen to agree with Mr. Kaplan. If that makes me a "fanatic of full disclosure" I accept the designation happily. 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 End of blml Digest, Vol 46, Issue 15 ************************************ **************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081202/ea338788/attachment-0001.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 09:33:34 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:33:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] New, narrower substantive law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4936445E.2070602@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau asserted: > >> As has been pointed out, the legislative history of L20 >> strongly suggests that the ambiguous references to >> "relevance" that were added in 2008 are clarifications of >> the original broad intent rather than the introduction of a >> new, narrower substantive law. > > Extract from 1997 Law 20F1: > > "...a full explanation of the opponents' auction..." > > Corresponding extract from 2007 Law 20F1: > > "...an explanation of the opponents' prior auction..." > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > The deletion of the word "full" and the addition of the word > "prior" seem to me to be a new, narrower substantive Law. > > If Stayman could not possibly have occurred in the **prior** > auction, then a question about Stayman is outside the scope > of a Law 20F1 question. However, I would choose to > **voluntarily** answer a question about my partnership's > major-promising Simple Stayman, in accordance with the WBF > Code of Practice advice permitting a generous attitude to > the opponents. > Irrelevant Richard. We are talking about what the laws say, not about what you would do. I concur with Eric that it seems very odd that the WBF would have deliberately decided to limit the scope of full disclosure. L20F1 was obviously written in order to explain that everything must be answered, including a number of things that people previously (and erroneously) thought were not to be answered: alternative calls made. To first write a law telling us that much more is included in the already present "everything relevant", and then to interpret that law into meaning "not everything relevant", seems like a very odd thing to do for a body of mostly the same persons within a time frame of just over one year. Herman. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 09:37:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:37:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Last MI ruling I > had, happened when I was a beginner. > I have never had UI ruling against me. Three possibilities: - Maciej is still a beginner - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory - Maciej has a faulty memory and he has forgotten all the rulings in between. > Enough said. > Ditto. Herman. >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 09:41:33 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:41:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. In-Reply-To: <003f01c954a0$2f33e340$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl><493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> <49355D1B.4080002@skynet.be> <003f01c954a0$2f33e340$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4936463D.2040804@skynet.be> Thanks, Maciej, for allowing humour to remain an integral part of blml. Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Herman De Wael wrote: >> >>> unfounded prior convictions. >>> >> Upon re-reading, this wording seems wrong. >> I did not wish to imply that you had done jail-time. >> I hope my intended meaning got accross. > > Heh, and I was just preparing a suit with my lawyer :-( > > The plural was mistaken, I was only once convicted for shooting the TD, who > dared to give a ruling against my team. Later the Highest Court cancelled my > 25-year sentence stating that the shooting of the TD can be only penalized > with 3 IMP PP. > I would have added that the the high court ruled that way because the TD was from the DWS :) >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 09:45:32 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:45:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] False card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4936472C.7040902@skynet.be> Richard falls into the same trap as David: misrepresenting my views, and adding ridicule. I told David to stop, now I'm telling you, Richard. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Last night in a key event equivalent to the Bermuda Bowl; > the penultimate Swiss match in the Consolation section of > a Canberra Bridge Club teams championship. :-) > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The Aussie Acol bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1S Pass 1NT > Pass Pass Pass > > Dummy > KQT42 > K > AT6 > QJ94 > > Declarer > A7 > 7653 > 9873 > AT8 > > West leads the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, East's > five and declarer's ace. At this point declarer asks > East about the system meaning of the nine of spades. > East replies that West is promising the ten of spades > but denying another higher honour. > > So at this point all four players know that West's > opening lead is a false card. > > At trick two declarer leads the seven of spades, and the > trey appears from West. Declarer now has to decide > whether West's opening lead was a falsecard from: > > (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or > (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or > (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). > > At the table declarer guesses wrong, one off. East-West > narrowly win the equivalent-to-Bermuda-Bowl-event, and > their octogenarian kibitzer is wild with applause. :-) > > However, from East's point of view there was a distinct > possibility that West's opening lead was not a false > card, but a memory failure. If the hypothetical 2018 > De Wael Lawbook had been in effect last night (which > has as its hypothetical touchstone "do not provide UI > to partner"), then East's De Wael answer to declarer's > question would have been either: > > (x) the nine of spades denies a higher honour, or > (y) the nine of spades promises a higher honour, often > but not necessarily the ten, > > depending on whether or not East held the jack of > spades. After such an answer declarer could not > possibly misguess the spades, which serves as a counter- > example to the assertion that De Wael infractions of the > actual 2008 Lawbook necessarily seek to gain a score > advantage for De Wael acolytes. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 Wed Dec 3 09:48:40 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:48:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> Message-ID: <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > > And to Herman's objection that David B. used his name without first > asking permission. > First reaction: so what? Sorry Jeff, David made ridicule of my views when they weren't even mine. If I say that Jeff condones wife beating, would you be happy with such an allegation? To be quite certain: I have no idea of how many times Jeff has beaten any wives. :) > Second reaction (does not contradict the first): there is an old > American saying: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. > If I were to have issued an opinion and David feels the need to ridicule that opinion, I'll gladly stand the heat. As it was, I was not even in the kitchen in the first place. Herman. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Dec 3 09:50:07 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:50:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 03/12/2008, Herman De Wael wrote: > Bystry wrote: > > Last MI ruling I > > had, happened when I was a beginner. > > I have never had UI ruling against me. > > Three possibilities: > > - Maciej is still a beginner > - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory > - Maciej has a faulty memory and he has forgotten all the rulings in > between. > > > Enough said. There's a fourth possibility: Maciej and his partner knows their system and thus never gives MI. Maciej and his partner is extremely good at not using UI. > > > > Ditto. Herman. > > >> Eric Landau > >> 1107 Dale Drive > >> Silver Spring MD 20910 > >> ehaa at starpower.net > > > > Regards > > > > Maciej > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 3 10:28:21 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:28:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > Last MI ruling I > > had, happened when I was a beginner. > > I have never had UI ruling against me. > > Three possibilities: > > - Maciej is still a beginner I invite you to check this personally. > - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory Selective. I'm able to remember even the smallest details for years but sometimes I forget something important in two hours. > - Maciej has a faulty memory and he has forgotten all the rulings in > between. That is of course possible but very improbable. But the real option is: - Maciej plays a simple and well constructed system, without excess of conventions, "ladder" agreements and without changing it too often. Additionally, with other partners he plays very similar systems to his own (with small differences checked before the play commences). Of course it happens that Maciej or his partner forgets one of less frequenly used agreements but it is generally an exception and always have resulted in poor score (or the mistake was a clear misbid which didn't require TD's ruling). Having said that I must also say that it is not your business and that personal attacks are conflicted with netiquette, and what's more important, with elemental personal culture. Trying to accost me because of your leftdown after losing a debate makes you appear childish and ridiculous. Not that I have any hope you will understand this (my friend pointed to me that it would be easier for you to understand a popular and ordinary two-word phrase - I happen to agree but still I don't want to lower myself to your level). Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 3 10:47:53 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:47:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4935CF1D.1080207@verizon.net> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <4935CF1D.1080207@verizon.net> Message-ID: <493655C9.5070909@ulb.ac.be> Hirsch Davis a ?crit : > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Didn't South actually make an unintentional psyche (by forgetting the >> system)? Fully legal and no reason to explain it before play. >> But that hardly matters: the question is if the superfluous info >> influenced the opening lead. Would East have been more likely not to >> lead a club without it? If yes, adjust; if no do not. >> >> >> >> > What Law allows this adjustment? If the psych is fully legal, who cares > what effect it had on the play? It can't be adjusted. As far as I can > tell, an adjustment can occur if the player who gave the superfluous > information could have known at the time of the infraction that it might > work to his benefit. AG : given that the overexplanation is an infraction, and I don't think it is. Trying to avoid gaining undeserved benefits from one's forgetting one's system can hardly be called an infraction. > Giving the opponent a correct description of his > hand is more likely to work to his detriment. There is clearly no intent > to mislead or deceive. The information just happened to work to the > other side's disadvantage through blind luck. No grounds for adjustment > there. > > A PP for failing to follow 20.F.4 is about the only penalty that can be > administered, as far as I can tell (there is no statement in the > original post that the TD was called to correct the MI given to W). > Which MI ?? And this has nothing to do with L20F4. This item says what one should do after one has created MI. Here, there was no MI. Nor does 20F5 apply. Actually, as Maciej has pointed out, no item of law specifically disallows South's action, not even 74B2, because the comment has a 'bridge reason' purpose. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 3 10:51:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:51:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <493656BD.3080006@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > David Burn is here arguing that intentionally disclosing a > non-agreement as an agreement, in order to pick up a slam > swing, risks disqualification. (A correct statement of > principle, but not necessarily congruent with the specific > facts of the actual case.) > > While Alain is saying that disclosure inconsistent with > partner's correct explanation is appreciated, since to do > otherwise will give crooks good reason to hide their > agreements. > Wrong. What I'm saying is that informing them that partner's explanation was right but your hand doesn't fit it is appreciated. 'disclosure' means giving information about an agreement. That is, as you say, not congruent with the actual case. From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 3 10:49:07 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 10:49:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl><4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002601c9552c$6263cf00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > There's a fourth possibility: > Maciej and his partner knows their system and thus never gives MI. That's close to the truth. "Never" is an overbid, but the rare forgets never resulted in a need for TD ruling (as it happens with the majority of the mistakes in bridge - they almost always result in a poor score although people like Bobby Wolff seem to be blind at this aspect). > Maciej and his partner is extremely good at not using UI. Yes, in my standing partnership both of us are the near-fanatics of bending backwards in the presence of UI (similar to Richard Hills as I understand). Unfortunately in some pick-up partnerships it is not always so fine, but, fortunately I'm a quite swift player and rarely hesitate so until now I was lucky enough to avoid any adverse rulings. That doesn't mean that I (or my partner) actually never used UI. It's very probable that there were such cases and nobody realized it. I could bet that scanning through all my past deals I would find a few in which the TD could rule that I had some obscure LA and adjust. People in Poland generally are not litigious and don't want to call the TD if they see that the chosen bid is more or less obvious. > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 3 11:04:32 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:04:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turmed poacher. References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <001201c951b5$029ace40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493277CC.6040101@skynet.be><001101c952e9$572d1640$15844c59@chello.pl> <4932C399.8030204@skynet.be><005e01c95314$28016080$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933A77D.7010604@skynet.be><005d01c953a9$f3585280$15844c59@chello.pl> <4933E2BC.4090505@skynet.be><00bc01c953be$12c100e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be><002f01c953fd$9f5a5b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4934FD4E.1050406@skynet.be><001301c9546a$4c5d0180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49352A4E.1090005@skynet.be> <001d01c9547f$bbdd6bc0$15844c59@chello.pl><493550F3.4060800@skynet.be> <49355D1B.4080002@skynet.be><003f01c954a0$2f33e340$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936463D.2040804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004401c9552e$89febf00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > The plural was mistaken, I was only once convicted for shooting the TD, who > > dared to give a ruling against my team. Later the Highest Court cancelled my > > 25-year sentence stating that the shooting of the TD can be only penalized > > with 3 IMP PP. > > > > I would have added that the the high court ruled that way because the TD > was from the DWS :) Nay. That would fall under "no public nuisance" or rather "mild contravention made pro publico bono". No penalty, possibility of decoration by our president. > Herman. Regards Maciej From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Dec 3 11:26:38 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:26:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081203212404.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 08:28 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote: >Hi, > > > > Last MI ruling I > > > had, happened when I was a beginner. > > > I have never had UI ruling against me. > > > > Three possibilities: > > > > - Maciej is still a beginner > >I invite you to check this personally. > > > - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory Well, I have also never had an MI or UI director call against me. However, I have several bidding misunderstandings where the opponents chalked up their 800 or 1100 and we mutually agreed that they probably weren't damaged, Cheers Tony (Sydney) From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Dec 3 11:58:34 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:58:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> I'd have no objection to you using my name in any way you like. I haven't patented it. As to the wife beating clich?: feel free. Such a statement says more about you (or the person stating it) than me (the person so described). If something legally actionable is (falsely) said, one can take appropriate action. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> And to Herman's objection that David B. used his name without first >> asking permission. >> First reaction: so what? > > Sorry Jeff, David made ridicule of my views when they weren't even mine. > If I say that Jeff condones wife beating, would you be happy with such > an allegation? > To be quite certain: I have no idea of how many times Jeff has beaten > any wives. :) > >> Second reaction (does not contradict the first): there is an old >> American saying: if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. >> > > If I were to have issued an opinion and David feels the need to ridicule > that opinion, I'll gladly stand the heat. As it was, I was not even in > the kitchen in the first place. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Dec 3 13:06:16 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:06:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49367638.2080800@talktalk.net> [Nigel] Suppose, in the original example, at the end of the auction, but before the opening lead, rather than *describe* what he meant by his bidding, dummy had *exposed* his entire hand -- the *ultimate disclosure*. Would most BLMlers still impose a *PP*? Would some *disqualify* him from the competition? [Richard Hills] Yes, as the hypothetical Director I would impose a PP. The hypothetical South has intentionally infracted Law 24 by exposing 13 cards during the auction period. [Nige2] OK. A PP does seem fair. I forgot to ask the preliminary question: If, with sight of all dummy's cards, a defender still makes a (reasonable) lead that allows 6N= to make, when other (reasonable) leads would defeat the contract, would you adjust to 6N-1 (because of the gratuitous information)? [Richard Hills] Suppose this event was a Calcutta tournament, with this hypothetical South having hypothetically bet on his opponents. Then for his illegal and apparently financially beneficial generosity to the opponents as the hypothetical Director I would disqualify the hypothetical South from the hypothetical competition. The fact that the hypothetical South's attempt to throw the match for financial gain has fortuitously failed, due to East finding the killing lead harder to find with extra but extraneous information, butters no parsnips. The hypothetical South has still hypothetically cheated, since Law 72A states that, "...The chief **object** is to obtain a higher score than other contestants..." _not_ "...The chief **outcome** is to obtain a higher score than other contestants..." What's the problem? [Nige3] You would rule as if South attempted to throw the match, simply on the evidence that he prematurely exposed his cards? or would you you require some evidence of his betting on opponents? Incidentally, would not such a bet be illegal, in itself? In the UK, it would be. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 13:37:22 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:37:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49367D82.70700@skynet.be> Maciej, Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >>> Last MI ruling I >>> had, happened when I was a beginner. My comment on this was to mean that this is highly unlikely. But in fact, this does not matter. >>> I have never had UI ruling against me. >> Three possibilities: >> >> - Maciej is still a beginner > > I invite you to check this personally. > >> - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory > > Selective. I'm able to remember even the smallest details for years but > sometimes I forget something important in two hours. > But never your system? And neither does your partner. Remarkable. >> - Maciej has a faulty memory and he has forgotten all the rulings in >> between. > > That is of course possible but very improbable. > You would not know it if it was, would you? :) > But the real option is: > > - Maciej plays a simple and well constructed system, without excess of > conventions, "ladder" agreements and without changing it too often. > Additionally, with other partners he plays very similar systems to his own > (with small differences checked before the play commences). Of course it > happens that Maciej or his partner forgets one of less frequenly used > agreements but it is generally an exception and always have resulted in poor > score (or the mistake was a clear misbid which didn't require TD's ruling). > And now we get to the crux of this writing. Maciej has of course been the (involuntary) perpetrator of MI. But, since Maciej is a conscientious player, he has always corrected the MI, checked for himself if his opponents were damaged, and possibly even changed the score. We've all done that. To say that one has never required a TD's ruling is just being selective with your memory. Like the players who tell the TD "you've never ever ruled in my favour", just half an hour after a revoke ruling. When you point that out, they say "ah, but that was correct, so I'm not counting that". Selective memory. Now I am not accusing Maciej of deliberately lying to us, or even of forgetting rulings. He may well be correct when he expands his claim to "contentious rulings" or something like that. What I am pointing out is something which taints everyone's memory: the easy and non-discussed cases are forgotten, only the contentious ones stick in mind. And that leads to TDs thinking that there are more UI cases than MI cases. Totally untrue. Or that UI carries no penalties. Totally untrue, because a majority of cases are handled by the partner not bidding on - he has suffered a "penalty" of sorts, but the TD has never even seen the table. We must always be weary of these things, and look at the game of bridge with a wider eye than we sometimes do. > Having said that I must also say that it is not your business and that > personal attacks are conflicted with netiquette, and what's more important, > with elemental personal culture. Trying to accost me because of your > leftdown after losing a debate makes you appear childish and ridiculous. Not > that I have any hope you will understand this (my friend pointed to me that > it would be easier for you to understand a popular and ordinary two-word > phrase - I happen to agree but still I don't want to lower myself to your > level). > As I think I've demonstrated above, I had no intention of questioning either your memory or your ethics, but merely to point out that your claim is very extraordinary and most certainly untrue. Not that it matters in the slightest. > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 13:38:26 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081203212404.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <6.1.0.6.2.20081203212404.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <49367DC2.4060603@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 08:28 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote: >> Hi, >> >>>> Last MI ruling I >>>> had, happened when I was a beginner. >>>> I have never had UI ruling against me. >>> Three possibilities: >>> >>> - Maciej is still a beginner >> I invite you to check this personally. >> >>> - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory > > Well, I have also never had an MI or UI director call against me. > > However, I have several bidding misunderstandings where the > opponents chalked up their 800 or 1100 and we mutually > agreed that they probably weren't damaged, > And you really never got away with a -100, and they were damaged? We have some very remarkable bridge players on our forum! > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 13:43:18 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:43:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> Message-ID: <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > I'd have no objection to you using my name in any way you like. I > haven't patented it. As to the wife beating clich?: feel free. Such a > statement says more about you (or the person stating it) than me (the > person so described). If something legally actionable is (falsely) > said, one can take appropriate action. JE > Well Jeff, you said it. If I were to seriously suggest that you beat your wife, you'd take appropriate action. Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a silly ruling, and I'm taking appropriate action about it. Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 3 14:47:48 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 14:47:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be><000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <49367D82.70700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c9554d$baa22100$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > And now we get to the crux of this writing. Maciej has of course been > the (involuntary) perpetrator of MI. But, since Maciej is a > conscientious player, he has always corrected the MI, checked for > himself if his opponents were damaged, and possibly even changed the > score. No. I'm not authorized to change the score and I have never done this. You are confusing MI with misbids. The former I really don't remember in my partnership (and it surely never resulted in any harm for the opponents), the latter happened a few times but mostly damaged my partnership, not the opponents (although there were some fixes, e.g. one on Monday but I played with a pick-up partner). > Now I am not accusing Maciej of deliberately lying to us, or even of > forgetting rulings. He may well be correct when he expands his claim to > "contentious rulings" or something like that. Simpler approach is to believe that other people are able to enunciate what they intend. If I wanted to state I'm unsure or exclude my own rulings I would write so. I don't have any problem with your fancy assumtions, just trying to help you to learn how to communicate with people. > As I think I've demonstrated above, I had no intention of questioning > either your memory or your ethics, but merely to point out that your > claim is very extraordinary and most certainly untrue. I'm responsible for my words. And in my environment accusing anybody of stating untruth has to be supported by proofs. Otherwise such person is himself treated as a liar. I'm waiting but I'm not holding my breath. > Herman. Regards Maciej From bobpark at connecttime.net Wed Dec 3 14:52:39 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:52:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> Message-ID: <49368F27.5080603@connecttime.net> Robert Frick wrote: >
On Tue, > 02 Dec 2008 21:11:41 -0500, Robert Park wrote: > >> As Maciej has pointed out, you have already gained an advantage >> (unearned) by knowing that your opponents have had a bidding foul-up. I >> see no reason why some future laws should give you any additional >> unearned advantage. I'm puzzled as to why you, Robert Frick et al think >> you deserve such added advantage. > > Hi Robert. I have a preference for divulgence when I am playing. I > like the process of building up a picture of declarer's hand from the > bidding and play and then problem-solving what to do. Being blind is > too much like pinochle or hearts. I don't like fooling or misleading > the opponents with my bidding mistakes. > > And everyone tends to like what they are familiar with. > > But it is just a small preference. I can understand your preference. > If 90% of the people thought like you, I think it would be very > foolish to make a rule saying that everyone had to play my way. > > If opinion is split, then I think divulgence is friendly, charitable, > and good for bridge. I think this new rule would work against the > ACBL's attempts to promote divulgence. Also, it would be nice to have > a simple rule. (Such as Max Bavin's "[a player] is entitled to know > full details of his opponent's system.") > > Bob > I'd be interested in hearing how you might word your preferences/argument when sitting in the NOS seats. Why do you think you deserve greater advantage than already handed you by the opponents' 'announced' screw-up? Especially as there has (as yet) been no damage. --Bob Park From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 3 14:55:17 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 13:55:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> [HdW] Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a silly ruling [DALB] But Herman, you would make a silly ruling. The entire basis of the dWS is that a player must not break Law 20F5a - it rests on no other Law. Now, Law 20F5a says that when a player gives a mistaken explanation, his partner must not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. You have said that without screens a player must therefore not correct a misexplanation by giving a correct explanation of a subsequent call to an opponent, but with screens he must. This is a silly ruling, because your precious Law 20F5a does not say anything about whether or not partner can see an indication that he has made a mistake - it just says that you must not give one. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 3 15:31:37 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:31:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> <004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <43011377-6083-45B2-A67F-6F4D69C1A69F@starpower.net> On Dec 2, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Bystry wrote: >> And even that redundancy exists only if one interprets "relevance" as >> the relevance of the meaning of the subject call to the auction >> rather than the relevance of the partnership agreement in question to >> the meaning of the subject call, which seems to me to be an equally >> valid interpretation. > > Excuse me but I have no idea what are you writing about. I just use > simple > English and logic: > > "about relevant alternative calls available that were not made" - > 1S-pass-2S > (questioned) - 1NT is relevant (could be forcing with miniraise), > 2C may be > relevant (Drury), 3S may be relevant (preemptive, limit). 4NT is not > relevant, 4D is not relevant, 7NT is not relevant. > > "about relevant inferences from the choice of action" - 1S-pass-2C > (GF, > semi-nat)-pass-2S-pass-2NT (questioned) - asks for opener's shape, > *if made > with spade support, it suggests (but doesn't promise) real clubs, > otherwise > could bid 3S* > >> Eric Landau The ACBL has offered the following: When asked the meaning of a call, one should disclose not only one's agreement about that particular call, but also any other partnership agreements that may be relevant to understanding that call. I take this (admittedly without evidence from authority) to be the ACBL's interpretation of the references to "relevance" in L20F1 (that would, admittedly, be the 1997 version, but I don't think that matters). The alternative interpretation, offered by Maciej, would be: When asked the meaning of a call, one should disclose one's agreements about that call only if the call is relevant to the immediate auction. One argument for choosing the former interpretation over the latter rests on the fact that the ACBL (and the WBF) have, for decades now, regularly issued regulations and interpretations that have expanded, rather than reduced, the scope of the disclosure requirements, and it would seem odd for them to suddenly reverse course. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 15:40:20 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:40:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <001101c9554d$baa22100$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be><000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <49367D82.70700@skynet.be> <001101c9554d$baa22100$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49369A54.5000503@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> And now we get to the crux of this writing. Maciej has of course been >> the (involuntary) perpetrator of MI. But, since Maciej is a >> conscientious player, he has always corrected the MI, checked for >> himself if his opponents were damaged, and possibly even changed the >> score. > > No. I'm not authorized to change the score and I have never done this. You > are confusing MI with misbids. The former I really don't remember in my > partnership (and it surely never resulted in any harm for the opponents), > the latter happened a few times but mostly damaged my partnership, not the > opponents (although there were some fixes, e.g. one on Monday but I played > with a pick-up partner). > Come off it, Maciej. You claim to have had misbids, but never misinformations? So when you forgot your system it was always when you were bidding yourself, never when partner was bidding? I find that very hard to believe. But as I said, it doesn't matter. Why am I even writing about it? Probably just to get the last word in. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 3 15:42:43 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 15:42:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> Message-ID: <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a silly ruling > > [DALB] > > But Herman, you would make a silly ruling. The entire basis of the dWS is > that a player must not break Law 20F5a - it rests on no other Law. Now, Law > 20F5a says that when a player gives a mistaken explanation, his partner must > not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. You have said that > without screens a player must therefore not correct a misexplanation by > giving a correct explanation of a subsequent call to an opponent, but with > screens he must. This is a silly ruling, because your precious Law 20F5a > does not say anything about whether or not partner can see an indication > that he has made a mistake - it just says that you must not give one. > > David Burn > London, England > David, this thread was not about that ruling, but over some other one that you invented at the start of your own message. I did not even get a chance to give a ruling on your case, and already you accused me of giving a silly one. I have no problems with you giving your opinion on my rulings. But when you do as above, you give your opinion on me. And that is Herman-bashing. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 3 17:16:43 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 11:16:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <49368F27.5080603@connecttime.net> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> <49368F27.5080603@connecttime.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:52:39 -0500, Robert Park wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >>
On Tue, >> 02 Dec 2008 21:11:41 -0500, Robert Park wrote: >> >>> As Maciej has pointed out, you have already gained an advantage >>> (unearned) by knowing that your opponents have had a bidding foul-up. I >>> see no reason why some future laws should give you any additional >>> unearned advantage. I'm puzzled as to why you, Robert Frick et al >>> think >>> you deserve such added advantage. >> >> Hi Robert. I have a preference for divulgence when I am playing. I >> like the process of building up a picture of declarer's hand from the >> bidding and play and then problem-solving what to do. Being blind is >> too much like pinochle or hearts. I don't like fooling or misleading >> the opponents with my bidding mistakes. >> >> And everyone tends to like what they are familiar with. >> >> But it is just a small preference. I can understand your preference. >> If 90% of the people thought like you, I think it would be very >> foolish to make a rule saying that everyone had to play my way. >> >> If opinion is split, then I think divulgence is friendly, charitable, >> and good for bridge. I think this new rule would work against the >> ACBL's attempts to promote divulgence. Also, it would be nice to have >> a simple rule. (Such as Max Bavin's "[a player] is entitled to know >> full details of his opponent's system.") >> >> Bob >> > > I'd be interested in hearing how you might word your > preferences/argument when sitting in the NOS seats. Why do you think you > deserve greater advantage than already handed you by the opponents' > 'announced' screw-up? Especially as there has (as yet) been no damage. > > --Bob Park Hi Bob Park. I think most people here will define "deserved" (and "fair") in terms of the existing laws. So if the laws say the opps have to give me the information, then I feel I deserve it; if the laws say the opps don't have to give me the information, then I don't deserve it. So the argument here has not been about what the opponents should deserve. However, if the ACBL sanctioned this opinion, then for a few years I would know better than my opponents what was required to be divulged. They would be giving me more information than they needed to, whilst I was not returning the favor. Some people here would call this unfair or undesirable. And my 3S example leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I will retell it. I bid 2Di (alerted and incorrectly explained by partner as multi), my partner bids 3S, and I bid 3NT, ending the auction. I now reveal that my 2Di bid was misexplained. Opponents ask about the meaning of the 3S call, and I describe it as natural, showing a good spade suit. Opening leader avoids leading a spade from KQxxx, and dummy comes down with two small spades. Since I don't have a spade stopper either, they have made the wrong opening lead and I get a top. Opponents discover that I knew all along that partner intended his bid to be asking for a spade stopper (by partnership agreement on responses to a multi 2Di when it does occur). I feel bad getting a top through a bidding misunderstanding. But that happens all of the time and I can deal with it. I feel very bad about the intentional misleading explanation of partner's 3S call. (Maciej has argued that (expert) players will realize that the explanation of the 3S is invalid and they don't have any idea what the 3S bid meant, but that just makes it worse when this happens against inexpert players.) Bob Frick From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Dec 3 20:47:32 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:47:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4936E254.6070303@aol.com> Ahoj! I didn't say it. Your English cannot be so bad that you misunderstand simple sentences. If you were to write that I beat my wife I'd ignore it because it is obviously bullshit and a figment of your imagination. There is not even any way you could know it were it true. I assume that anyone knowing me would not be misled by such a statement and would only wonder why you wrote it. The same applies to your objection that started this. Anyone following blml and reading your stuff (sometimes difficult and I must admit that I have an aversion to very long postings and generally delete them after a quick glance -- this is not directed exclusively, or even purposely at you, it applies to any long (or boring) posting. Unfortunately it seems that you do write something like 90% of the long postings. (If they are boring is a matter of subjective reception.) So, anyway, anyone following blml knows what you have said and not said. So no reason to get excited by something so inconsequential. To return to the starting point: I said anyone could take action if he (not you in this case) feels something is legally actionable. It is my decision if I were to consider some spurious comment (such as wife beating) to be so. I should not, I'd simply ignore it. I suggest you do the same when someone uses your name in vain. If you feel that D. suggested you'd make a silly ruling, explain and defend the ruling, don't get excited about the use of your name. Ciao, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> I'd have no objection to you using my name in any way you like. I >> haven't patented it. As to the wife beating clich?: feel free. Such a >> statement says more about you (or the person stating it) than me (the >> person so described). If something legally actionable is (falsely) >> said, one can take appropriate action. JE >> > > Well Jeff, you said it. > If I were to seriously suggest that you beat your wife, you'd take > appropriate action. > Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a silly > ruling, and I'm taking appropriate action about it. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Dec 3 20:53:49 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:53:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> Hmm. Herman bashing appears again. Again no one else ever seems to get bashed. I wonder if this all has something to do with Herman and not so much with the bashers. Does anyone else get offended when an opinion, or ruling, is criticised, or even said to be silly? It has never occurred to me to do so. I have been directing for a long time, much longer than Herman in fact (which is irrelevant) and have made many silly rulings. So what? As someone said at the end of a Billy Wilder film, "no one is perfect". He apparently hadn't met Herman who seems to tend to think he is. With sympathy for all of the other sufferers, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > David Burn wrote: >> [HdW] >> >> Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a silly ruling >> >> [DALB] >> >> But Herman, you would make a silly ruling. The entire basis of the dWS is >> that a player must not break Law 20F5a - it rests on no other Law. Now, Law >> 20F5a says that when a player gives a mistaken explanation, his partner must >> not indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made. You have said that >> without screens a player must therefore not correct a misexplanation by >> giving a correct explanation of a subsequent call to an opponent, but with >> screens he must. This is a silly ruling, because your precious Law 20F5a >> does not say anything about whether or not partner can see an indication >> that he has made a mistake - it just says that you must not give one. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> > > David, this thread was not about that ruling, but over some other one > that you invented at the start of your own message. > I did not even get a chance to give a ruling on your case, and already > you accused me of giving a silly one. > > I have no problems with you giving your opinion on my rulings. > But when you do as above, you give your opinion on me. And that is > Herman-bashing. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 3 21:19:25 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 21:19:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> Message-ID: <000601c95584$7016b470$50441d50$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > As someone said at the end of a Billy Wilder > film, "no one is perfect". "As someone said at the end of A film ? ! ? ! ? ! They were the (famous) last words in THE film: Some like it hot! Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Dec 3 21:23:39 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:23:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] False card [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4936472C.7040902@skynet.be> References: <4936472C.7040902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4936EACB.6050509@aol.com> Herman seems to feel that he has copy written his name and can forbid others from using it. A debatable position. But I see two possible simple solutions which would avoid the problem. (1) He could change his name. (2) He could stop sending postings on which others might comment. But perhaps I misunderstand. The problem for Herman (good grief, I've used his name without seeking written permission) does not seem to be the ridicule and "misrepresentation" but the usage of the name. Or is this wrong? Will he allow his name to be used if there is no ridicule or "misrepresentation"? Confused Herman De Wael schrieb: > Richard falls into the same trap as David: > misrepresenting my views, and adding ridicule. > I told David to stop, now I'm telling you, Richard. > Herman. > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> Last night in a key event equivalent to the Bermuda Bowl; >> the penultimate Swiss match in the Consolation section of >> a Canberra Bridge Club teams championship. :-) >> >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: North-South >> >> The Aussie Acol bidding has gone: >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- 1S Pass 1NT >> Pass Pass Pass >> >> Dummy >> KQT42 >> K >> AT6 >> QJ94 >> >> Declarer >> A7 >> 7653 >> 9873 >> AT8 >> >> West leads the nine of spades to dummy's deuce, East's >> five and declarer's ace. At this point declarer asks >> East about the system meaning of the nine of spades. >> East replies that West is promising the ten of spades >> but denying another higher honour. >> >> So at this point all four players know that West's >> opening lead is a false card. >> >> At trick two declarer leads the seven of spades, and the >> trey appears from West. Declarer now has to decide >> whether West's opening lead was a falsecard from: >> >> (a) 9863 (systemic opening lead eight of spades), or >> (b) 973 (systemic opening lead seven of spades), or >> (c) J983 (systemic opening lead trey of spades). >> >> At the table declarer guesses wrong, one off. East-West >> narrowly win the equivalent-to-Bermuda-Bowl-event, and >> their octogenarian kibitzer is wild with applause. :-) >> >> However, from East's point of view there was a distinct >> possibility that West's opening lead was not a false >> card, but a memory failure. If the hypothetical 2018 >> De Wael Lawbook had been in effect last night (which >> has as its hypothetical touchstone "do not provide UI >> to partner"), then East's De Wael answer to declarer's >> question would have been either: >> >> (x) the nine of spades denies a higher honour, or >> (y) the nine of spades promises a higher honour, often >> but not necessarily the ten, >> >> depending on whether or not East held the jack of >> spades. After such an answer declarer could not >> possibly misguess the spades, which serves as a counter- >> example to the assertion that De Wael infractions of the >> actual 2008 Lawbook necessarily seek to gain a score >> advantage for De Wael acolytes. >> >> >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >> Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >> Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Wed Dec 3 23:45:02 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:45:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <493655C9.5070909@ulb.ac.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <4935CF1D.1080207@verizon.net> <493655C9.5070909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49370BEE.2060602@verizon.net> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Hirsch Davis a ?crit : > > >> Giving the opponent a correct description of his >> hand is more likely to work to his detriment. There is clearly no intent >> to mislead or deceive. The information just happened to work to the >> other side's disadvantage through blind luck. No grounds for adjustment >> there. >> >> A PP for failing to follow 20.F.4 is about the only penalty that can be >> administered, as far as I can tell (there is no statement in the >> original post that the TD was called to correct the MI given to W). >> >> > Which MI ?? And this has nothing to do with L20F4. This item says what > one should do after one has created MI. Here, there was no MI. Nor does > 20F5 apply. Actually, as Maciej has pointed out, no item of law > specifically disallows South's action, not even 74B2, because the > comment has a 'bridge reason' purpose. > > > Best regards > > Alain > > > My error. I should have written that the only potential grounds for a PP would have been if S, having forgotten system, had misinformed W and then failed to summon the TD, which could be penalized under L20.F.4. Otherwise, no Law has been broken. If W had not received an explanation from S, then this would clearly not apply. Note that I'm talking about an explanation that would have occurred at the time the bid was made, not the extraneous information given prior to the lead. Best regards, Hirsch From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 4 00:24:48 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:24:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <49367DC2.4060603@skynet.be> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <6.1.0.6.2.20081203212404.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> <49367DC2.4060603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081204101543.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 11:38 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove wrote: > > At 08:28 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >>>> Last MI ruling I > >>>> had, happened when I was a beginner. > >>>> I have never had UI ruling against me. > >>> Three possibilities: > >>> > >>> - Maciej is still a beginner > >> I invite you to check this personally. > >> > >>> - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory > > > > Well, I have also never had an MI or UI director call against me. > > > > However, I have several bidding misunderstandings where the > > opponents chalked up their 800 or 1100 and we mutually > > agreed that they probably weren't damaged, > > > >And you really never got away with a -100, and they were damaged? >We have some very remarkable bridge players on our forum! > Yes, I think we tend to play a somewhat different game out here (judging by some of the discussions that go on in this forum). I have directed for over 40 years, and at present 6 times a week and have never issued a PP (except an educational warning). I have never called the TD for opponent's apparent use of UI, and I think I have always suggested that we call the TD if I or my partner has given MI (Unfortunately, that is sometimes me). Just about all of my controversial decisions end up on blml because I do not operate with an AC, they are very rare. Perhaps it is our convict ancestry which makes us anti-authoritarian. Perhaps you would enjoy a game here sometime. You could use any system you fancy, and the H1H would scarcely turn a hair, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > Cheers > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > >Herman. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 4 01:36:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:36:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49367638.2080800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Wkipedia: >>The show sparked considerable controversy at the time, because it >>featured extended scenes of total nudity, both male and female. The >>title is taken from a painting by Clovis Trouille, itself a pun on >>"O quel cul t'as!" >>..... >>In an episode of "Roseanne" entitled "White Men Can't Kiss", >>Roseanne gripes about having to sew costumes for one of DJ's school >>plays, stating, "I don't know why they can't just do Oh! Calcutta!" Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >evidence of his betting on opponents? Incidentally, would not such a >bet be illegal, in itself? In the UK, it would be. Richard Hills: Yes, it seems that Calcutta tournaments would be illegal in the UK, not just because the bridge players are unclothed, but also because those players who have bet on their current opponents would have an inherent conflict of interest. In an old Bridge World editorial, Edgar Kaplan responded to a complaint by a bridge player whose Calcutta partner had Oh!-so-subtly played below par against an opposing pair the partner had invested money in. That player had not spoken to his former partner since. Edgar Kaplan's (paraphrased) response was that it was highly ethical in the wider world to seek returns on investment to prevent one's children starving in the cold, cold snow. But in the narrow bridge world it was highly ridiculous for conditions of contest to exist that encouraged playing to lose. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 02:26:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:26:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493655C9.5070909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: H.L. Mencken (1880-1956): "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >Trying to avoid gaining undeserved benefits from one's >forgetting one's system can hardly be called an infraction. Richard Hills quibbles: Begging the question, petitio principii. Alain's adjective "undeserved" is nowhere in the 2007 Lawbook, therefore Alain's statement is the classical logical fallacy of "a false premise implies any conclusion". 1) Unintentionally forgetting one's system is legal. 2) Usually unintentionally forgetting one's system causes a disaster to one's side. 3) Occasionally unintentionally forgetting one's system gives a lucky result to one's side, to which one is entitled by Law to receive; Law 75C. 4) Giving an unnecessary benefit to the other side, which they are not entitled by Law to receive, is a "throwing the match (dumping)" infraction; Law 72A. What's the problem? The problem is that Alain, a blmler well-versed in the 1997 Lawbook, has fallen into the classic trap of thinking that the 2007 Lawbook has no significant differences from its predecessor. Law 72A is one significant difference. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 04:24:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:24:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Al Levy: >Law 40A1(b) >Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership >understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. >[this doesn't mean that an opponent must spend a 15 minutes >reading the system card and system notes and asking detailed >questions before play starts and then never again!? A two board >15-minute round would be gone before a bid was made. It is >clear that the meaning is that a partnership must supply their >opponents with their system (all partnership understandings) >before play begins. This is in the form of a System Card, which >includes system notes, i.e., ALL ITS PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDING.] > >Law 40B2(c) >...a player may consult his opponent's system card (i) prior to >commencement of the auction [at the time it must be supplied], >(ii) ... and (iii) during the auction and during the play but >only at his turn to call or play. > >So a partnership must supply ALL their understandings to the >opponents before play [with a COMPLETE SC...the Law doesn't say >selected partnership understandings] and the opponents may >consult their opponents' COMPLETE understandings during the >bidding and play. So, if the opponents must supply you with all >their understandings before play and you can consult these >understanding during play, it must be that you are entitled to >find any understanding, not just relevant understandings, anytime >(when it is your turn to bid or play), not just before play >begins. > >Al Richard Hills: Hello, Al. Belated welcoming greetings to blml (since by my recollection this is your second posting, not your first). While Al Levy is of course a common name for an American bridge player, I am wondering if you are the same Al Levy who serves on the ACBL Board of Directors (and attended the most recent meeting of the WBF Laws Committee)? On the substantive issue of Law 40A1(b), you omitted the second sentence, "The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done." No Regulating Authority has required ALL of a partnership's pre-existing mutual explicit and implicit understandings to be inscribed on a System Card (and supplementary sheets) simply because such a task is impossible. Therefore Regulating Authorities have specified additional methods of disclosure, for example: (a) alerts, (b) pre-alerts, (c) post-alerts, (d) announcements, plus (e) Law 20 permits relevant questions. Irrelevant questions are by definition not relevant to the current auction or play, so failure to answer such an irrelevant question by definition cannot damage the questioning side. An answer to an irrelevant question may grant the questioning side an extraneous bonus if the answering side is in the middle of a misunderstanding. But there is a difference between an entitlement mandated by Law and a rub-of-the-green extraneous bonus which is not mandated by Law (a distinction not yet grasped by Eric Landau). What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 06:07:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:07:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Gamekeeper turned poacher. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493411C0.8000500@skynet.be> Message-ID: Winston Churchill (1874-1965), describing Clement Attlee: "A sheep in sheep's clothing." Clement Attlee (1883-1967): "A lot of clever people have got everything except judgement." He-who-must-not-be-named asserted: >And who says I cannot misexplain 10 calls in one auction? Richard Hills refutes: I do. Intentionally misexplaining a call is a "must not" infraction of Law 72B1. Intentionally misexplaining ten calls in one auction are ten "must not" infractions of Law 72B1. On the other hand, ten intentionally silly calls in one auction may be mandatory due to Law 75A (final sentence): "For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four-card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Lord Voldemort asserted: >I urge one of our Richard to come up with a symmetrical >relay auction (details available on request) which has a >totally different meaning when the first call is >misexplained. I see no problem with the partner bidding 5 >times according to the real meaning, and giving 5 totally >different explanations according to the meaning his >partner has obviously given to the auction. Richard Hills refutes: No, what Law 75 requires is the exact opposite. Twice before on blml I have described the accident I had when I forgot that I was playing Forcing Pass Relay (instead thinking I was playing Symmetric Relay), so opened a Pass with a grotty 6 hcp instead of the required 15+ hcp. Partner duly alerted my Pass, so for the rest of the auction I was obeying Law 75 by alerting and explaining partner's calls in accordance with our current Forcing Pass Relay understandings, but selecting my own calls in accordance with our once and future Symmetric Relay understandings. Lord Voldemort: >Might be fun to see when partner realises it has become >impossible. Richard Hills: As luck would have it, my intentionally silly calls mandated by Law 75A confused all three opponents, so my eventual declaring of a three-level partscore in a non- suit was quietly -250. Clement Attlee describing himself (in a 1956 letter to Tom Attlee): "Few thought he was even a starter There were many who thought themselves smarter But he ended PM CH and OM An earl and a knight of the garter." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 07:16:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:16:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>An answer to an irrelevant question may grant the questioning side >>an extraneous bonus if the answering side is in the middle of a >>misunderstanding. But there is a difference between an entitlement >>mandated by Law and a rub-of-the-green extraneous bonus which is >>not mandated by Law (a distinction not yet grasped by Eric Landau). Eric Landau: >It makes no sense to me Richard Hills: Ignoring what the Lawbook and the WBF LC say in favour of what your common sense thinks the Lawbook and the WBF LC ought to say is the classic error committed by he-who-must-not-be-named. Eric Landau: >to say that I have the absolute right to know what my opponents' >Blackwood responses mean if I ask them before the auction starts >(which is what L40A1(b) quite clearly says), Richard Hills: I quite clearly agree with Eric that that is what Law 40A1(b) says. (My disagreement with Al Levy was Al's leaping assumption that therefore the written System Card and supplementary written documentation must necessarily be a 100% complete encyclopedia.) Eric Landau: >but lose the right to ask Richard Hills: No, lose the right to ask an _irrelevant_ question. Eric Landau: >if I allow the auction to begin without having anticipated that I >might want to know Richard Hills: _Want_ to know ain't _need_ to know if the question ain't _relevant_. Eric Landau: >about that (or any other!) particular aspect of their system. Richard Hills: Well, I think that (unlike Lord Voldemort) Eric Landau is willing to admit that the WBF Laws Committee has the power to interpret the Law 20F1 word "relevant" and that decisions of the WBF Laws Committee should be obeyed. Plus this discussion is moot for Eric and myself, since the WBF LC permits us to _voluntarily_ answer irrelevant questions. As to "de gustibus non est disputandum", whether the WBF LC decision has merit, I note that it is consistent with ABF best practice. The ABF recommends that one should volunteer the important information about one's methods (especially including information about unusual methods for which the opponents may need to prepare a defence) at the start of a round or match. The ABF also deprecates the asking of unnecessary questions (which would presumably include irrelevant questions), as the ABF is opposed to unnecessarily transmitting UI to partner. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 07:35:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:35:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49350698.30304@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Jean-Pierre Rocafort, correct protocol: >>the case is completed and nobody is no longer protesting, so >>I think it can be debated. Alain Gottcheiner, naive thought: >AG : and I naively thought we could be consulted to help in >solving cases :-\ WBF Code of Practice, 2008 revision, page 4: "The committee is to hear and make judgement upon an appeal duly made as the laws and the applicable regulations determine, from a ruling by a Director (in person or by an assistant on his behalf). An appeal against a ruling may only be made by a side present at the table where the ruling was given. No account is to be taken of the interests of other contestants in the outcome." Presumably even less account is to be taken of the interests of non-contestants in the outcome. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 07:56:21 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:56:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Dialogue Bystry-Eric [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick suggested: >The laws should probably try to describe correct procedure. Introduction ("Law Zero"), first and final paragraphs: "The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. Finally, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and the masculine includes the feminine, and vice versa." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 08:11:57 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 18:11:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> Message-ID: He-who-must-not-be-named asserted: >Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a >silly ruling, and I'm taking appropriate action about it. Richard Hills quibbles: What to say when Lord Voldemort himself has repeatedly made self-incriminating comments about his intent to make silly rulings? Notably Voldemort's Draco-nian interpretation of the Law 85 criterion "balance of probabilities"? And Voldemort's assertion that a coin-toss is a valid method for a Director to use? :-) :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 09:07:50 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081204101543.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <6.1.0.6.2.20081203212404.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> <49367DC2.4060603@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20081204101543.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <49378FD6.6060407@skynet.be> So basically Tony, you have had MI cases against you, but never a TD call, because you solved it yourself? Isn't that the same as a TD call against you, with you being the TD as well? Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 11:38 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote: >> Tony Musgrove wrote: >>> At 08:28 PM 3/12/2008, you wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>>>> Last MI ruling I >>>>>> had, happened when I was a beginner. >>>>>> I have never had UI ruling against me. >>>>> Three possibilities: >>>>> >>>>> - Maciej is still a beginner >>>> I invite you to check this personally. >>>> >>>>> - Maciej (and his partner) has an extraordinary memory >>> Well, I have also never had an MI or UI director call against me. >>> >>> However, I have several bidding misunderstandings where the >>> opponents chalked up their 800 or 1100 and we mutually >>> agreed that they probably weren't damaged, >>> >> And you really never got away with a -100, and they were damaged? >> We have some very remarkable bridge players on our forum! >> > > Yes, I think we tend to play a somewhat different game out here > (judging by some of the discussions that go on in this forum). I > have directed for over 40 years, and at present 6 times a week and > have never issued a PP (except an educational warning). I > have never called the TD for opponent's apparent use of UI, and > I think I have always suggested that we call the TD if I or my > partner has given MI (Unfortunately, that is sometimes me). > Just about all of my controversial decisions end up on blml because > I do not operate with an AC, they are very rare. > Perhaps it is our convict ancestry which makes us anti-authoritarian. > > Perhaps you would enjoy a game here sometime. You could > use any system you fancy, and the H1H would scarcely turn a hair, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > >>> Cheers >>> >>> Tony (Sydney) >>> >> Herman. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 09:14:02 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:14:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> Message-ID: <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hmm. Herman bashing appears again. Again no one else ever seems to get > bashed. I wonder if this all has something to do with Herman and not so > much with the bashers. Does anyone else get offended when an opinion, > or ruling, is criticised, or even said to be silly? My opinions have often been called silly, and I haven't objected. What I did object to was David, twice, spelling out a case and telling the world how I would rule on it. And then ridiculing that ruling. Richard has done it as well. In all three cases, I had not been asked to give a ruling, I had not given a ruling, and the ruling that was presented under my name was ridiculous, and would not have been my ruling. So not only did these two eminent contributors misdescribe my views, they further ridiculed those non-existent views. If I am not allowed to object to such low-life tactics in trying to ridiculise me and my views, then you too, Jeff, can be considered guilty of Herman-bashing. And that is the end of this topic. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 09:20:03 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:20:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4936E254.6070303@aol.com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <4936E254.6070303@aol.com> Message-ID: <493792B3.6010206@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ahoj! I didn't say it. Your English cannot be so bad that you > misunderstand simple sentences. If you were to write that I beat my > wife I'd ignore it because it is obviously bullshit and a figment of > your imagination. There is not even any way you could know it were it > true. I assume that anyone knowing me would not be misled by such a > statement and would only wonder why you wrote it. Totally irrelevant, since people do know me and do know I sometimes spout silly views (silly in the opinion of others). So writing that "Herman would rule X" is more likely to be believed than "Jeff beats his wife". Anyway, it is not important if you do or do not object to be called a wife-beater, what is important is that I felt that a line had been crossed by David and Richard. They have ridiculed me often, without me feeling damaged by it. This time, they went too far, and I told them off. If you cannot understand the subtle difference, then I cannot help you. If you hadn't seen the difference, then I invite you to browse the previous posts and check what David wrote. > The same applies to > your objection that started this. Anyone following blml and reading > your stuff (sometimes difficult and I must admit that I have an aversion > to very long postings and generally delete them after a quick glance -- > this is not directed exclusively, or even purposely at you, it applies > to any long (or boring) posting. Unfortunately it seems that you do > write something like 90% of the long postings. (If they are boring is a > matter of subjective reception.) So, anyway, anyone following blml > knows what you have said and not said. So no reason to get excited by > something so inconsequential. > To return to the starting point: I said anyone could take action if he > (not you in this case) feels something is legally actionable. It is my > decision if I were to consider some spurious comment (such as wife > beating) to be so. I should not, I'd simply ignore it. I suggest you do > the same when someone uses your name in vain. > If you feel that D. suggested you'd make a silly ruling, explain and > defend the ruling, don't get excited about the use of your name. Ciao, JE > If I had made a ruling, I would not even need to defend it, anyone could be forgiven for calling it silly. But I did not even make a ruling, or give a comment on one. A silly ruling was ascribed to me, and the object was clearly to call me silly. A line was crossed. Herman. From blml at bridgescore.de Thu Dec 4 09:25:58 2008 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:25:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49379416.600@bridgescore.de> richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > What to say when Lord Voldemort himself has repeatedly made > self-incriminating comments about his intent to make silly > rulings? Notably Voldemort's Draconian interpretation of > the Law 85 criterion "balance of probabilities"? And > Voldemort's assertion that a coin-toss is a valid method > for a Director to use? Hear, hear! The coin-toss certainly set a standard for silly rulings. Sillyness has not been the same since then ;-) Regards, Christian From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 09:51:59 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 21:51:59 +1300 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query Message-ID: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to conflict with the HUM regulations. The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands otherwise you are playing a HUM: "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker than a hand that you would pass. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 4 09:53:19 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:53:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <49378FD6.6060407@skynet.be> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be> <000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <6.1.0.6.2.20081203212404.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> <49367DC2.4060603@skynet.be> <6.1.0.6.2.20081204101543.01bf2a50@mail.optusnet.com.au> <49378FD6.6060407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081204194709.01d9bee8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 07:07 PM 4/12/2008, you wrote: >So basically Tony, you have had MI cases against you, but never a TD >call, because you solved it yourself? >Isn't that the same as a TD call against you, with you being the TD as well? I am not sure. Maybe I am a barber who shaves himself? The last time I alerted partner's 2S over my 1NT as "probably a transfer to either minor". We ended in 3C for an excellent result but I then found out with this particular partner the transfer was to clubs only. After discussing with the NOs, they decided they weren't damaged. I was not the directrix. Over to you for the last word, no more from me Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From blml at bridgescore.de Thu Dec 4 10:12:15 2008 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:12:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> Hi, the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an opening at the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open *every* hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite sensibly, since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a mere point count. Regards, Christian Wayne Burrows schrieb: > Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from > time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to > conflict with the HUM regulations. > > The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands > otherwise you are playing a HUM: > > "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > weaker than pass." > > As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker > than a hand that you would pass. > From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 4 10:18:44 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:18:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from > time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to > conflict with the HUM regulations. > > The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands > otherwise you are playing a HUM: > > "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > weaker than pass." > > As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker > than a hand that you would pass. What is the question? Your analysis is correct. Regards Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 10:26:00 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:26:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/4 Sven Pran : > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >> conflict with the HUM regulations. >> >> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >> >> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >> weaker than pass." >> >> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >> than a hand that you would pass. > > What is the question? Your analysis is correct. > I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 10:29:03 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:29:03 +1300 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1e0@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/4 Christian Farwig (BLML) : > Hi, > > the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an opening at > the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open *every* > hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite sensibly, > since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a > mere point count. > I think your logic is wrong since the wording of the HUM regulation includes "may be weaker than pass". To me this means it is sufficient to find one hand that you would pass that is stronger than the hand that you opened (by partnership understanding - psyches are excluded) in order for you method to be a HUM. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 10:40:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 10:40:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from > time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to > conflict with the HUM regulations. > > The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands > otherwise you are playing a HUM: > > "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > weaker than pass." > > As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker > than a hand that you would pass. > Wayne makes one logical error: The rule says "weaker than" not "having less HCP than". So while it is illegal to open on 7HCP (if that is what the law says), it is not illegal to open on 8HCP (idem), and it is not illegal to pass on 9HCP, if you consider that hand to be worth less than the 8HCP one. Solves you problem, Wayne? Herman. From wjburrows at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 10:52:00 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:52:00 +1300 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/4 Herman De Wael : > Wayne Burrows wrote: >> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >> conflict with the HUM regulations. >> >> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >> >> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >> weaker than pass." >> >> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >> than a hand that you would pass. >> > > Wayne makes one logical error: > > The rule says "weaker than" not "having less HCP than". > > So while it is illegal to open on 7HCP (if that is what the law says), > it is not illegal to open on 8HCP (idem), and it is not illegal to pass > on 9HCP, if you consider that hand to be worth less than the 8HCP one. > > Solves you problem, Wayne? > I accept the arguement for certain cases but lets say you open: AKJxx xxx xxx xx It may be hard to argue that this hand is stronger than Axxx AQxx xxx xx which you would pass. So the consequence of opening the first hand is that you must open the second one or declare that you are playing a HUM which for example in the recent World Championships was illegal. It is unfortunate that the regulations give no guidance on how to tell if one hand is stronger or weaker than another. > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 4 11:07:17 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:07:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows > >> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from > >> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to > >> conflict with the HUM regulations. > >> > >> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands > >> otherwise you are playing a HUM: > >> > >> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > >> weaker than pass." > >> > >> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker > >> than a hand that you would pass. > > > > What is the question? Your analysis is correct. > > > > I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" IMO YES. You are not allowed to have a partnership understanding where PASS in the opening position can show a stronger hand than an opening bid at the one level. The consequence is that if you want to open a hand that is (by definition) weaker than a hand that can be passed then you must open it at the two level or higher. I don't really see why such regulation is unreasonable? Regards Sven From brian at meadows.pair.com Thu Dec 4 11:22:30 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:22:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> Message-ID: <4937AF66.9020508@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Sven Pran wrote: | On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows |>>> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from |>>> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to |>>> conflict with the HUM regulations. |>>> |>>> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands |>>> otherwise you are playing a HUM: |>>> |>>> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be |>>> weaker than pass." |>>> |>>> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker |>>> than a hand that you would pass. |>> What is the question? Your analysis is correct. |>> |> I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" | | IMO YES. | | You are not allowed to have a partnership understanding where PASS in the | opening position can show a stronger hand than an opening bid at the one | level. | | The consequence is that if you want to open a hand that is (by definition) | weaker than a hand that can be passed then you must open it at the two level | or higher. | | I don't really see why such regulation is unreasonable? | It's unreasonable only if you play under regulations which apply the Work count with (near) mathematical precision, where to be able to open AKJx xxxx xxx xx in 3rd hand for a spade lead, you must also open QJx QJx QJx xxxx or be in jeopardy of playing a HUM. Brian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJN69mgLujL0lynd0RAhaFAKCTnH11o8scZa781FIDdo687VnUMgCeILHk dfxMGl3XPgr79HIiqAFzJcY= =UfMb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 11:29:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:29:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > >> Trying to avoid gaining undeserved benefits from one's >> forgetting one's system can hardly be called an infraction. >> > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Begging the question, petitio principii. Richard, I don't like your way to pretend that anybody that doesn't exactly reason as the Master Richard Hills does is automatically unable to make any valid reasoning. > Alain's adjective > "undeserved" is nowhere in the 2007 Lawbook AG : nope, but it is part of common life ethics, and therefore of "active ethics". > 4) Giving an unnecessary benefit to the other side, which > they are not entitled by Law to receive, is a "throwing > the match (dumping)" infraction; Law 72A. > > If warning opponents that their inferences could be unvalid, and by my fault, is considered match dumping, then this game has evolved beyond what I can bear. I hope that is NOT what the 2007 Laws say. If it is, I'm seriously considering switching to more ethcial games. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 11:32:36 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:32:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <4937B1C4.50100@ulb.ac.be> Christian Farwig (BLML) a ?crit : > Hi, > > the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an opening at > the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open *every* > hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite sensibly, > since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a > mere point count. > AG : a system that would require opening at the 1-level ALL 8-HCP hands with 5 hearts but not those with 9 would indeed be a HUM. But I don't think that's the spirit of Helgemo's style. Best regards Alain From blml at bridgescore.de Thu Dec 4 11:33:16 2008 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:33:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4937B1EC.2060100@bridgescore.de> Hi Wayne, Wayne Burrows schrieb: > It is unfortunate that the regulations give no guidance on how to tell > if one hand is stronger or weaker than another. actually, I think this is most fortunate, since hand evaluation a very individual decision resting on a number of factors, some of them not directly related to the hand itself (partner, scoring method, tactical considerations) or even inspiration. Any regulation trying to encompass all factors would be pretty indigestible. Regards, Christian From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 11:37:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:37:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4937B2F2.7000800@ulb.ac.be> Wayne Burrows a ?crit : > 2008/12/4 Herman De Wael : > >> Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >>> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >>> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >>> conflict with the HUM regulations. >>> >>> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >>> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >>> >>> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >>> weaker than pass." >>> >>> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >>> than a hand that you would pass. >>> >>> >> Wayne makes one logical error: >> >> The rule says "weaker than" not "having less HCP than". >> >> So while it is illegal to open on 7HCP (if that is what the law says), >> it is not illegal to open on 8HCP (idem), and it is not illegal to pass >> on 9HCP, if you consider that hand to be worth less than the 8HCP one. >> >> Solves you problem, Wayne? >> >> > > I accept the arguement for certain cases but lets say you open (1): > > AKJxx > xxx > xxx > xx > > It may be hard to argue that this hand is stronger than (2) > > Axxx > AQxx > xxx > xx > > which you would pass. > AG: oh, but I could. Hand #1 will often take 4 tricks with spades as trumps. But hand #2 can't be counted as 4 tricks with any trump suit. If they open 1C, wouldn't we all overcall 1S with 1 and pass with 2 on those grounds ? Anyway, HUM regulations (if any) should specifiy "weaker and of the same hand type". If a pair want to open from 9HCP with a 5-carder and from 13 without it, that's no HUM, I hope. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 12:51:54 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:51:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> Message-ID: <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >>>> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >>>> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >>>> conflict with the HUM regulations. >>>> >>>> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >>>> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >>>> >>>> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >>>> weaker than pass." >>>> >>>> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >>>> than a hand that you would pass. >>> What is the question? Your analysis is correct. >>> >> I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" > > IMO YES. > > You are not allowed to have a partnership understanding where PASS in the > opening position can show a stronger hand than an opening bid at the one > level. > > The consequence is that if you want to open a hand that is (by definition) > weaker than a hand that can be passed then you must open it at the two level > or higher. > > I don't really see why such regulation is unreasonable? > > Regards Sven > It isn't - but see my previous message about the definition of a hand being weaker. You confuse two things: the wish of the SO to have an easy definition of "weak", so that some halds can be considered too weak to open, and their use of the word "weaker", without definition. They have allowed Axxxx Axxxx x xx (under, say, the R18), but they have not stated that they consider QJ QJ Qxxx Jxxxx to be "stronger" than the previous hand. This indeed means that there is no real test to check on this criterium, but I don't believe one can find many pairs who would open the first hand but not one where the singleton diamond is the jack. Herman. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Dec 4 12:50:29 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:50:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4937C405.4020503@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] What's the problem? [Nigel] Ask not for what the poster trolls, He trolls for thee. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 12:58:38 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:58:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4937C5EE.8010308@skynet.be> Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/12/4 Herman De Wael : >> Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >>> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >>> conflict with the HUM regulations. >>> >>> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >>> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >>> >>> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >>> weaker than pass." >>> >>> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >>> than a hand that you would pass. >>> >> Wayne makes one logical error: >> >> The rule says "weaker than" not "having less HCP than". >> >> So while it is illegal to open on 7HCP (if that is what the law says), >> it is not illegal to open on 8HCP (idem), and it is not illegal to pass >> on 9HCP, if you consider that hand to be worth less than the 8HCP one. >> >> Solves you problem, Wayne? >> > > I accept the arguement for certain cases but lets say you open: > > AKJxx > xxx > xxx > xx > > It may be hard to argue that this hand is stronger than > > Axxx > AQxx > xxx > xx > > which you would pass. > > So the consequence of opening the first hand is that you must open the > second one or declare that you are playing a HUM which for example in > the recent World Championships was illegal. > > It is unfortunate that the regulations give no guidance on how to tell > if one hand is stronger or weaker than another. > That is, indeed, unfortunate. You have, moreover, given a good example of two hands where one would sometimes open with the first and normally pass with the second. It is, however, quite debatable that the second hand is stronger than the first. The fifth spade is certainly worth something. You might even say close to one trick. OTOH, the queen of hearts is worth half a trick. Add the jack of hearts to the second hand and if you still pass, you might be in trouble. It is a very close call, but you are right, it is unfortunate that this is not clearly defined. >> Herman. >> Herman. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Dec 4 13:24:18 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:24:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> [Herman De Wael] My opinions have often been called silly, and I haven't objected. What I did object to was David, twice, spelling out a case and telling the world how I would rule on it. And then ridiculing that ruling. Richard has done it as well. In all three cases, I had not been asked to give a ruling, I had no tgiven a ruling, and the ruling that was presented under my name was ridiculous, and would not have been my ruling. So not only did these two eminent contributors misdescribe my views, they further ridiculed those non-existent views. [Nigel] Herman's gripe is legitimate. David and Richard set up and shredded a straw-man. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 4 13:28:18 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:28:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> [Nigel] Herman's gripe is legitimate. David and Richard set up and shredded a straw-man. [DALB] No, we didn't. We are still waiting for Herman's answer to the question: should a player behind a screen, who knows that his partner has given a mistaken explanation, correct that explanation to his screen-mate in breach of Law 20F5A? If so, why? David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 4 13:42:40 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 07:42:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:11:57 -0500, wrote: > He-who-must-not-be-named asserted: > >> Here, I feel that David seriously suggested that I'd make a >> silly ruling, and I'm taking appropriate action about it. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > What to say when Lord Voldemort himself has repeatedly made > self-incriminating comments about his intent to make silly > rulings? Notably Voldemort's Draco-nian interpretation of > the Law 85 criterion "balance of probabilities"? And > Voldemort's assertion that a coin-toss is a valid method > for a Director to use? David Burns suggested that Herman would make a ruling that Herman in fact would not make, and then (it seems to me) that David made fun of this ruling and misrepresented Herman's position. (Ironically, few blmler's agreed with David's ruling.) And then for his efforts to correct this, Herman is criticized and ridiculed. You are now pointing out, I hope, that Herman is the only one who can appropriately be treated this way. Or maybe not, feel free to clarify. Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 14:06:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:06:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4937D5EE.3070008@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > You confuse two things: the wish of the SO to have an easy definition of > "weak", so that some halds can be considered too weak to open, and their > use of the word "weaker", without definition. They have allowed Axxxx > Axxxx x xx (under, say, the R18), but they have not stated that they > consider QJ QJ Qxxx Jxxxx to be "stronger" than the previous hand. > > This indeed means that there is no real test to check on this criterium, > but I don't believe one can find many pairs who would open the first > hand but not one where the singleton diamond is the jack. > AG : this could happen. Those who consider ODR as an important criterion would perhaps open with K10xxx - KQxx - xx - xx and pass with K10xxx - AQxx - Jx - Jx So there can indeed be a problem. But in all fairness this mainly applies to preempts. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Dec 4 14:07:42 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:07:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] System regulation In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4937D61E.7060107@talktalk.net> [Wayne Burrows] Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to conflict with the HUM regulations.The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands otherwise you are playing a HUM: "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker than a hand that you would pass. [Nigel] The rules seems to say that to avoid HUM restrictions, then you must agree to always open at the one level with any hand that you would ever open. Presumably you must disregard the state of the match, vulnerability, position, opponents, current feelings, and deliberate variation. IMO, this can't be what the WBF means. But what it really intends is academic. As the EBU and WBF have consistently demonstrated, it is nigh impossible to phrase system-restrictions clearly. The rules are prolix and complex. Few read them. Fewer understand them. Infractions are rarely detected, reported, or penalized. BLMLers rush to make excuses for rule-breakers. Masochists, who comply with such rules, suffer a handicap that is something decisive. The obvious solution is to scrap superfluous guff. Specify a *two-tier* system of system-regulation - - *Standard System* where all players employ identical methods and - *Anything goes* where HUMs an BSCs are welcome. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 14:08:20 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:08:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4937C5EE.8010308@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> <4937C5EE.8010308@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4937D644.5080305@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> 2008/12/4 Herman De Wael : >> >>> Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>>> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >>>> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >>>> conflict with the HUM regulations. >>>> >>>> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >>>> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >>>> >>>> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >>>> weaker than pass." >>>> >>>> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >>>> than a hand that you would pass. >>>> >>>> >>> Wayne makes one logical error: >>> >>> The rule says "weaker than" not "having less HCP than". >>> >>> So while it is illegal to open on 7HCP (if that is what the law says), >>> it is not illegal to open on 8HCP (idem), and it is not illegal to pass >>> on 9HCP, if you consider that hand to be worth less than the 8HCP one. >>> >>> Solves you problem, Wayne? >>> >>> >> I accept the arguement for certain cases but lets say you open: >> >> AKJxx >> xxx >> xxx >> xx >> >> It may be hard to argue that this hand is stronger than >> >> Axxx >> AQxx >> xxx >> xx >> >> which you would pass. >> >> So the consequence of opening the first hand is that you must open the >> second one or declare that you are playing a HUM which for example in >> the recent World Championships was illegal. >> >> It is unfortunate that the regulations give no guidance on how to tell >> if one hand is stronger or weaker than another. >> >> > > That is, indeed, unfortunate. > You have, moreover, given a good example of two hands where one would > sometimes open with the first and normally pass with the second. It is, > however, quite debatable that the second hand is stronger than the > first. The fifth spade is certainly worth something. You might even say > close to one trick. OTOH, the queen of hearts is worth half a trick. > Add the jack of hearts to the second hand and if you still pass, you > might be in trouble. > AG : notice that Bissell count makes the first hand stronger by two points IIRC. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 4 14:08:38 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:08:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be> References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:29:15 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : >> >>> Trying to avoid gaining undeserved benefits from one's >>> forgetting one's system can hardly be called an infraction. >>> >> >> Richard Hills quibbles: >> >> Begging the question, petitio principii. > Richard, I don't like your way to pretend that anybody that doesn't > exactly reason as the Master Richard Hills does is automatically unable > to make any valid reasoning. > >> Alain's adjective >> "undeserved" is nowhere in the 2007 Lawbook > AG : nope, but it is part of common life ethics, and therefore of > "active ethics". > >> 4) Giving an unnecessary benefit to the other side, which >> they are not entitled by Law to receive, is a "throwing >> the match (dumping)" infraction; Law 72A. >> >> > If warning opponents that their inferences could be unvalid, and by my > fault, is considered match dumping, then this game has evolved beyond > what I can bear. > I hope that is NOT what the 2007 Laws say. > If it is, I'm seriously considering switching to more ethcial games. I think Richard is trying to use L72A "....The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants..... "Chief" does not imply "only". The law allows multiple goals. And "is" is about as weak as a law can get. I will give Richard the "the" can be replaced with "a player's", but that is questionable. Actually, my chief objective is enjoying myself. (If you think I should be trying to win, you will run into the paradox that I do better when I try to enjoy myself than when I try to win.) This law does not discriminate a player trying to play bridge in a friendly manner at the club from a player deliberately throwing an event for selfish purposes. I realize those can be difficult to distinguish. But still, they are very different. And the WBFLC apparently accepts that players may volunteer information that is not required. (Albeit they have to worry about some directors rectifying for any damage caused by the extra information.) And the law could equally read (in ACBL-land) "The chief object is to win masterpoints." Probably true as a description, but not a very good prescription. Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 14:22:04 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:22:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> Message-ID: <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [Nigel] > > Herman's gripe is legitimate. David and Richard set up and shredded a > straw-man. > > [DALB] > > No, we didn't. Yes, you did. You told the world what my ruling would be. > We are still waiting for Herman's answer to the question: > should a player behind a screen, who knows that his partner has given a > mistaken explanation, correct that explanation to his screen-mate in breach > of Law 20F5A? If so, why? > Well, if you put the question like this, it is totally useless. Since partner has explained it incorrectly to my screenmate's partner, and I have explained it correctly to my screenmate, there is nothing for me to correct to my screenmate. Totally useless question. And totally wrong for David to write what I would answer, and to make ridicule of that answer. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Dec 4 14:43:59 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:43:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] System regulation In-Reply-To: <4937D61E.7060107@talktalk.net> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937D61E.7060107@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4937DE9F.5030501@talktalk.net> [Wayne Burrows] Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to conflict with the HUM regulations.The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands otherwise you are playing a HUM: "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker than a hand that you would pass. [Nigel: same substance as my last post but fewer typos] The rules seems to say that, to avoid HUM restrictions, you must agree always to open at the one level with any hand that you would ever open. Presumably, you must disregard the state of the match, vulnerability, position, opponents, your current feelings, and deliberate variation. This can't be what the WBF means. But what it really intends is academic. As the EBU and WBF have consistently demonstrated, it is nigh impossible to phrase system-restrictions clearly. The rules are prolix and complex. Few read them. Fewer understand them. Infractions are rarely detected, reported, or penalized. BLMLers rush to make excuses for rule-breakers. Masochists, who comply with such rules, suffer a handicap that is sometimes decisive. The solution is to scrap superfluous guff; to specify a *two-tier* system of system-regulation - - *Standard System* where all players employ identical methods and - *Anything goes* where HUMs an BSCs are welcome. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Dec 4 15:06:07 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:06:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <0 00301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no><2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7 603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> Message-ID: <4937E3CF.3010303@meteo.fr> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Wayne Burrows >>>> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >>>> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >>>> conflict with the HUM regulations. >>>> >>>> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >>>> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >>>> >>>> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >>>> weaker than pass." >>>> >>>> As if you pass any of the 9hcp then your opening of 1H may be weaker >>>> than a hand that you would pass. >>> What is the question? Your analysis is correct. >>> >> I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" > > IMO YES. > > You are not allowed to have a partnership understanding where PASS in the > opening position can show a stronger hand than an opening bid at the one > level. > > The consequence is that if you want to open a hand that is (by definition) > weaker than a hand that can be passed then you must open it at the two level > or higher. > > I don't really see why such regulation is unreasonable? this is a quite frequent situation which happened already many times from system regulations: most players require to be protected from uncommon systems they don't want to have to think about. when, inevitably, it happens that a prohibition devised to that effect, limits what they have always done for long by using the superior judgment they share with all the reliable players they know, it can only be an unwanted side effect and it would obviously be laughable to apply it against them. so is human nature. jpr > > Regards Sven > > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Thu Dec 4 15:15:40 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:15:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4937E60C.1060908@verizon.net> Robert Frick wrote: > > David Burns suggested that Herman would make a ruling that Herman in fact > would not make, and then (it seems to me) that David made fun of this > ruling and misrepresented Herman's position. (Ironically, few blmler's > agreed with David's ruling.) > > And then for his efforts to correct this, Herman is criticized and > ridiculed. > > You are now pointing out, I hope, that Herman is the only one who can > appropriately be treated this way. Or maybe not, feel free to clarify. > > Bob > > > Herman's house of cards is built on an incorrect interpretation of L20.F.5.a. The dWS depends on that Law being inviolate. Once there are any exceptions whatsoever, Herman's past 12 years of arguments fall apart. As has been noted, particularly by the WBF whose notes actually matter, this Law does not apply when explaining system but Herman continues to insist that it does. There is also more than one way to interpret the language used in that Law, only one of which leads to Herman's conclusions. So, you will have to forgive those of us who bring out L20.F.5.a in situations where it is clearly applicable, but a leads to an utterly silly ruling if Herman's interpretation is used. Herman's position on L.20.F.5.a has not been misrepresented, but has simply been shown to be absurd. Eventually Herman will have to either admit that under certain circumstances L20F.5.a really does not apply, in which case there is no longer any basis in Law whatsoever for his dWS arguments, or he can stick to his interpretation, and have to endure the silly rulings that his interpretation of L20.F.5.a. forces on situations for which he does not have a ready reply. Herman has taken calling those situations "Herman-bashing", which allows him to defend against a non-existent ad hominum attack, and ignore the real and unfortunate implications that his interpretation of L20.F.5.a imposes on rulings. Notice that Herman has focussed solely on "Herman-bashing" in this thread, and not answered the question posed by David Burn, for which he has no real answer that does not either a) contradict his interpretation of L20.F.5.a, or b) look silly. This is not to say that there have not been instances of very real "Herman bashing" in which a direct ad hominem attack has occurred. However, that is not the situation here. If Herman would not make the ruling that David Burn suggests, I look forward to reading his actual response to the situation posed, and how he justifies ignoring/modifying L20.F.5.a in that situation, when he considers it to be absolute in other situations. "Herman bashing" should be reserved for situations when a direct ad hominem has occurred, otherwise it loses its meaning. Disagreeing with Herman's position by pointing out its inconsistencies and unfortunate implications is not the same thing as bashing him. Hirsch From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 4 15:21:46 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:21:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> [HdW] Should a player behind a screen, who knows that his partner has given a mistaken explanation, correct that explanation to his screen-mate in breach of Law 20F5A? If so, why? Well, if you put the question like this, it is totally useless. [DALB] Has anyone else noticed that when you ask Herman a question, the correct answer to which will imply that the dWS is built on quicksand, he will bluster, complain about Herman-bashing, drag in irrelevancies - in short, do anything but answer the question? David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 15:37:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:37:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> Message-ID: <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [HdW] > > Should a player behind a screen, who knows that his partner has given a > mistaken explanation, correct that explanation to his screen-mate in breach > of Law 20F5A? If so, why? > > Well, if you put the question like this, it is totally useless. > > [DALB] > > Has anyone else noticed that when you ask Herman a question, the correct > answer to which will imply that the dWS is built on quicksand, he will > bluster, complain about Herman-bashing, drag in irrelevancies - in short, do > anything but answer the question? > > AG : has anyone noticed that dWS is of no use behind screens, so that using "screens on" examples shows you didn't understand its basis ? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 15:45:12 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 09:45:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2008, at 1:16 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > >> to say that I have the absolute right to know what my opponents' >> Blackwood responses mean if I ask them before the auction starts >> (which is what L40A1(b) quite clearly says), > > Richard Hills: > > I quite clearly agree with Eric that that is what Law 40A1(b) says. > (My disagreement with Al Levy was Al's leaping assumption that > therefore the written System Card and supplementary written > documentation must necessarily be a 100% complete encyclopedia.) I don't think that's Al's position, nor is it mine. Fulfilling such a requirement would be patently impossible. But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a partnership to supply a "100% complete encyclopedia". And the second sentence allows the RA to "specif[y] the manner in which this shall be done". Putting those together, it seems to me that by mandating use of a SC/CC, the RA is specifying the manner in which this shall be done as follows: Descriptions of certain specified partnership understandings (presumably the most important or most frequently asked about ones) must be written on the SC/CC, to be made available to an opponent on request at his turn to bid or play. Descriptions of the remainder of the partnership understandings may be retained in the brains of the partners, to be made available to an opponent on request at his turn to bid or play. ISTM that any other interpretation means treating the first sentence of L40A1(b) as a joke, to be ignored. > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 16:00:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:00:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4937F09C.6020501@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Descriptions of certain specified partnership understandings > (presumably the most important or most frequently asked about ones) > must be written on the SC/CC, to be made available to an opponent on > request at his turn to bid or play. > > Descriptions of the remainder of the partnership understandings may > be retained in the brains of the partners, to be made available to an > opponent on request at his turn to bid or play. > > What about supplemental notes ? From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 16:03:58 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:03:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1e0@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1e0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > 2008/12/4 Christian Farwig (BLML) : > >> the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an >> opening at >> the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open >> *every* >> hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite >> sensibly, >> since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a >> mere point count. > > I think your logic is wrong since the wording of the HUM regulation > includes "may be weaker than pass". To me this means it is sufficient > to find one hand that you would pass that is stronger than the hand > that you opened (by partnership understanding - psyches are excluded) > in order for you method to be a HUM. True, but not the point. The question at issue here is whether "stronger than the hand that you opened" is to be defined strictly by HCP, or whether the player's own judgment may be brought to bear. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 4 16:14:59 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:14:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> [AG] has anyone noticed that dWS is of no use behind screens, so that using "screens on" examples shows you didn't understand its basis ? [DALB] I understand perfectly well the basis for the dWS - indeed, not all that long ago Herman himself was kind enough to say that I had provided a good summary of his position. The basis for the dWS is this: in certain circumstances you are compelled to break some Law of the game, or violate some principle, or both. When your partner has misexplained a call (whether his own or, more usually, yours) and you are asked for an explanation of a subsequent calls (yours or, more usually, his) you must violate either: the principle of non-communication other than by means of calls or plays (because your explanation will convey to partner that he has misunderstood); or the principle of full disclosure (because if you misexplain the next call in order not to alert partner, you will misinform your opponents as to your methods). In short, you have the choice between giving UI to partner and giving MI to the opponents. Herman believes that the latter is preferable, others (including, at this time, the WBF) believe that the former is preferable. But in arguing for the dWS, Herman has relied entirely upon Law 20F5a, which he has hitherto considered paramount. He has argued incessantly that giving what he now calls CEs (consistent explanations) instead of SEs (systemic explanations) is sanctioned by Law 20F5a even though it is prohibited by Law 40B6. If a Law is paramount, then its application is universal - one cannot say, for example: "there are circumstances in which this paramount Law does not apply". There are no circumstances in which you may legally misinform your opponents. There are many circumstances in which you may legally perform an action one of whose consequences may be (but not necessarily will be) to give UI to your partner, including the circumstances I have exemplified. Herman has not yet acknowledged this. He should. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 4 16:16:56 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 15:16:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> [EL] But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a partnership to supply a "100% complete encyclopedia" [DALB] No, it does not, any more than "Passengers must take all their personal belongings with them when leaving the train" means that you may not board the train having left any of your personal possessions at home. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 16:17:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:17:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4937A587.5080908@skynet.be> <2a1c3a560812040152l3bc1d111rbed6b723e6e32896@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:52 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > I accept the arguement for certain cases but lets say you open: > > AKJxx > xxx > xxx > xx > > It may be hard to argue that this hand is stronger than > > Axxx > AQxx > xxx > xx > > which you would pass. > > So the consequence of opening the first hand is that you must open the > second one or declare that you are playing a HUM which for example in > the recent World Championships was illegal. > > It is unfortunate that the regulations give no guidance on how to tell > if one hand is stronger or weaker than another. I'd call it fortunate. It means that hand evaluation may yet remain an aspect of the game of bridge, subject to the skills and talents of individual players, rather than a matter to be defined uniformly for everyone by regulation. For this, IMHO, we should all be grateful. If I genuinely believe that an 8-HCP hand with all 8 HCP concentrated in a 5-card suit is a better potential playing hand than a flat 10- HCP point hand without a 5-card suit, who is some administrator to tell me otherwise? Regulators should stick to deciding what's good for bridge, not what's good bridge. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 16:21:54 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:21:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <49379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1e0@mail.gmail.com> <051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4937F592.7000804@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > > >> 2008/12/4 Christian Farwig (BLML) : >> >> >>> the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an >>> opening at >>> the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open >>> *every* >>> hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite >>> sensibly, >>> since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a >>> mere point count. >>> >> I think your logic is wrong since the wording of the HUM regulation >> includes "may be weaker than pass". To me this means it is sufficient >> to find one hand that you would pass that is stronger than the hand >> that you opened (by partnership understanding - psyches are excluded) >> in order for you method to be a HUM. >> > > True, but not the point. The question at issue here is whether > "stronger than the hand that you opened" is to be defined strictly by > HCP, or whether the player's own judgment may be brought to bear. > > AG : I'd say there is a second point : might there be a twilight zone of hands you would open or not, according to circumstances ? I'd open AKJxx / Qxxx ./ xx / xx about 20% of the time and I'd open AKJ109 / Q9xx / xx / xx about 50% of the time. And in that case, finding a hand that one would occasdionally pass and which is slightly stronger than a hand that one would occasionally open would be too easy. If this is HUM, then anybody but diehard walruses would be reputed to play a HUM, which isn't the intent of the law. So, ISTM that we have to allow a twilight zone. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 16:25:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:25:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> Message-ID: <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > has anyone noticed that dWS is of no use behind screens, so that using > "screens on" examples shows you didn't understand its basis ? > > [DALB] > > I understand perfectly well the basis for the dWS - indeed, not all that > long ago Herman himself was kind enough to say that I had provided a good > summary of his position. > > The basis for the dWS is this: in certain circumstances you are compelled to > break some Law of the game, or violate some principle, or both. When your > partner has misexplained a call (whether his own or, more usually, yours) > and you are asked for an explanation of a subsequent calls (yours or, more > usually, his) you must violate either: > > 1. the principle of non-communication other than by means of calls or plays > (because your explanation will convey to partner that he has misunderstood); > or > 2. the principle of full disclosure (because if you misexplain the next call in > order not to alert partner, you will misinform your opponents as to your > methods). > No Sir. When there are screens there is no danger of conveying information to partner, if your explanations are written, and they should be. Whence the problem doesn't exist. dWS is all about avoiding UI, and there ain't any UI in your explanations when there are screens. Hence, the 'in certain circumstances' you mentioned simply doesn't happen behind screens. It's as simple as that. Don't you realize this ? From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 4 16:38:21 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:38:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> Message-ID: <4937F96D.109@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Should a player behind a screen, who knows that his partner has given a > mistaken explanation, correct that explanation to his screen-mate in breach > of Law 20F5A? If so, why? > > Well, if you put the question like this, it is totally useless. > > [DALB] > > Has anyone else noticed that when you ask Herman a question, the correct > answer to which will imply that the dWS is built on quicksand, he will > bluster, complain about Herman-bashing, drag in irrelevancies - in short, do > anything but answer the question? > I answered the question. I have nothing to correct, so I cannot correct. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 16:52:26 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 10:52:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <4937F09C.6020501@ulb.ac.be> References: <4937F09C.6020501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> Descriptions of certain specified partnership understandings >> (presumably the most important or most frequently asked about ones) >> must be written on the SC/CC, to be made available to an opponent on >> request at his turn to bid or play. >> >> Descriptions of the remainder of the partnership understandings may >> be retained in the brains of the partners, to be made available to an >> opponent on request at his turn to bid or play. > > What about supplemental notes ? What about them? "The RA specifies the manner in which this shall be done." They can require, permit or forbid supplemental notes as they choose, and may mandate or regulate what should be included in them. None of that involves repealing the first sentence of L40A1 (b). "Each partnership has a duty to make available..." The RA decides what part of that must, or may, be made available in writing on a CC, in supplementary notes, on graven tablets, or in whatever medium it chooses. Whatever isn't made available in writing must be made available by some other means. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 17:05:15 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:05:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> Message-ID: <88D1100A-22E4-425E-968F-50A8456F6187@starpower.net> On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:16 AM, David Burn wrote: > [EL] > > But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a > partnership to > supply a "100% complete encyclopedia" > > [DALB] > > No, it does not, any more than "Passengers must take all their > personal > belongings with them when leaving the train" means that you may not > board > the train having left any of your personal possessions at home. Words have context. David apparently thinks that the authors of L40A1 (b) were idiots. I think they're clever enough that if they really meant, "Each partnership has a duty to make available such partnership understandings as the RA shall require to opponents before commencing play against them," they would have said so. Or they might have, to equal effect, used "extent to" rather than "manner in" the second sentence. They did neither. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 17:24:51 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 11:24:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> [AG] >> >> has anyone noticed that dWS is of no use behind screens, so that >> using >> "screens on" examples shows you didn't understand its basis ? >> >> [DALB] >> >> I understand perfectly well the basis for the dWS - indeed, not >> all that >> long ago Herman himself was kind enough to say that I had provided >> a good >> summary of his position. >> >> The basis for the dWS is this: in certain circumstances you are >> compelled to >> break some Law of the game, or violate some principle, or both. >> When your >> partner has misexplained a call (whether his own or, more usually, >> yours) >> and you are asked for an explanation of a subsequent calls (yours >> or, more >> usually, his) you must violate either: >> >> 1. the principle of non-communication other than by means of calls >> or plays >> (because your explanation will convey to partner that he has >> misunderstood); >> or >> 2. the principle of full disclosure (because if you misexplain the >> next call in >> order not to alert partner, you will misinform your opponents as >> to your >> methods). > > No Sir. When there are screens there is no danger of conveying > information to partner, if your explanations are written, and they > should be. > Whence the problem doesn't exist. > > dWS is all about avoiding UI, and there ain't any UI in your > explanations when there are screens. > Hence, the 'in certain circumstances' you mentioned simply doesn't > happen behind screens. > It's as simple as that. > Don't you realize this ? L20F5(a) has repeatedly been cited as the underlying justification of the dWS, whose author has, on countless occasions, rested his argument on the words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made". DALB merely points out that those who cite that phrase in support of the dWS choose to read it as though it contained the words "to partner" after "indicate", which it does not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Dec 4 17:25:17 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:25:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4937F592.7000804@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4 9379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1 e0@mail.gmail.com><051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> <4937F592.7000804@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4938046D.7000700@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Eric Landau a ?crit : >> On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> >>> 2008/12/4 Christian Farwig (BLML) : >>> >>> >>>> the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an >>>> opening at >>>> the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open >>>> *every* >>>> hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite >>>> sensibly, >>>> since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a >>>> mere point count. >>>> >>> I think your logic is wrong since the wording of the HUM regulation >>> includes "may be weaker than pass". To me this means it is sufficient >>> to find one hand that you would pass that is stronger than the hand >>> that you opened (by partnership understanding - psyches are excluded) >>> in order for you method to be a HUM. >>> >> True, but not the point. The question at issue here is whether >> "stronger than the hand that you opened" is to be defined strictly by >> HCP, or whether the player's own judgment may be brought to bear. >> >> > AG : I'd say there is a second point : might there be a twilight zone of > hands you would open or not, according to circumstances ? > I'd open AKJxx / Qxxx ./ xx / xx about 20% of the time > and I'd open AKJ109 / Q9xx / xx / xx about 50% of the time. > > And in that case, finding a hand that one would occasdionally pass and > which is slightly stronger than a hand that one would occasionally open > would be too easy. > If this is HUM, then anybody but diehard walruses would be reputed to > play a HUM, which isn't the intent of the law. ok, we use the letter of the law when we see it helpful and the intent of the law when we see it stupid. wtp? jpr > > So, ISTM that we have to allow a twilight zone. > > > Best regards > > Alain > -- _______________________________________________ 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 blml at bridgescore.de Thu Dec 4 17:49:11 2008 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:49:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4938046D.7000700@meteo.fr> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4 9379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1 e0@mail.gmail.com><051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> <4937F592.7000804@ulb.ac.be> <4938046D.7000700@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <49380A07.2050002@bridgescore.de> Jean-Pierre Rocafort schrieb: > ok, we use the letter of the law when we see it helpful and the intent > of the law when we see it stupid. wtp? > > jpr I am still confident that the regulation refers to openings, which are systematically stronger than a pass and does not prohibit exceptions, which are not part of the system as such, but based on Bridge judgement. If you open on 9 points b/o an exceptionally good hand, this does not contradict the general lower boundary of 12 hcp for an opening. Best regards, Christian From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 17:52:22 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:52:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >>> [AG] >>> >>> has anyone noticed that dWS is of no use behind screens, so that >>> using >>> "screens on" examples shows you didn't understand its basis ? >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> I understand perfectly well the basis for the dWS - indeed, not >>> all that >>> long ago Herman himself was kind enough to say that I had provided >>> a good >>> summary of his position. >>> >>> The basis for the dWS is this: in certain circumstances you are >>> compelled to >>> break some Law of the game, or violate some principle, or both. >>> When your >>> partner has misexplained a call (whether his own or, more usually, >>> yours) >>> and you are asked for an explanation of a subsequent calls (yours >>> or, more >>> usually, his) you must violate either: >>> >>> 1. the principle of non-communication other than by means of calls >>> or plays >>> (because your explanation will convey to partner that he has >>> misunderstood); >>> or >>> 2. the principle of full disclosure (because if you misexplain the >>> next call in >>> order not to alert partner, you will misinform your opponents as >>> to your >>> methods). >>> >> No Sir. When there are screens there is no danger of conveying >> information to partner, if your explanations are written, and they >> should be. >> Whence the problem doesn't exist. >> >> dWS is all about avoiding UI, and there ain't any UI in your >> explanations when there are screens. >> Hence, the 'in certain circumstances' you mentioned simply doesn't >> happen behind screens. >> It's as simple as that. >> Don't you realize this ? >> > > L20F5(a) has repeatedly been cited as the underlying justification of > the dWS, whose author has, on countless occasions, rested his > argument on the words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a > mistake has been made". DALB merely points out that those who cite > that phrase in support of the dWS choose to read it as though it > contained the words "to partner" after "indicate", which it does not. > Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind screens is illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens, and it isn't fair to ask what it would suggest in such. cases. Without screens, the indication provided by explanations is perceptible to all three players. So indicating to partner and indicating are identical. To summarize : no, we don't add the words "to partner", because they would make no sense. Would you please all stop trying to guess (andd guessing wrongly) what other peolpe think ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 4 18:00:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:00:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4938046D.7000700@meteo.fr> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4 9379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c1 e0@mail.gmail.com><051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> <4937F592.7000804@ulb.ac.be> <4938046D.7000700@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <49380C95.9070505@ulb.ac.be> Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> 2008/12/4 Christian Farwig (BLML) : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an >>>>> opening at >>>>> the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open >>>>> *every* >>>>> hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite >>>>> sensibly, >>>>> since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a >>>>> mere point count. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> I think your logic is wrong since the wording of the HUM regulation >>>> includes "may be weaker than pass". To me this means it is sufficient >>>> to find one hand that you would pass that is stronger than the hand >>>> that you opened (by partnership understanding - psyches are excluded) >>>> in order for you method to be a HUM. >>>> >>>> >>> True, but not the point. The question at issue here is whether >>> "stronger than the hand that you opened" is to be defined strictly by >>> HCP, or whether the player's own judgment may be brought to bear. >>> >>> >>> >> AG : I'd say there is a second point : might there be a twilight zone of >> hands you would open or not, according to circumstances ? >> I'd open AKJxx / Qxxx ./ xx / xx about 20% of the time >> and I'd open AKJ109 / Q9xx / xx / xx about 50% of the time. >> >> And in that case, finding a hand that one would occasdionally pass and >> which is slightly stronger than a hand that one would occasionally open >> would be too easy. >> If this is HUM, then anybody but diehard walruses would be reputed to >> play a HUM, which isn't the intent of the law. >> > > ok, we use the letter of the law when we see it helpful and the intent > of the law when we see it stupid. wtp? > > AG : no problem for me, but you'd realize that the stupidity seen by one person is seen as logical by the other. See the ongoing thread about correcting information. Some of us think that the interdiction to inform opponents of your mistake is helpful, and they want to expel the player who would do it. Some others think that the spirit of the law doesn't dictate this and that it would be stupid to take it at the letter in this case. And both groups are made of people with more or less sane minds. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 4 18:15:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 12:15:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> L20F5(a) has repeatedly been cited as the underlying justification of >> the dWS, whose author has, on countless occasions, rested his >> argument on the words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a >> mistake has been made". DALB merely points out that those who cite >> that phrase in support of the dWS choose to read it as though it >> contained the words "to partner" after "indicate", which it does not. > > Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind > screens is > illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens, and it isn't > fair > to ask what it would suggest in such. cases. Why isn't it fair? If you have a theoretical premise for your views, you should be prepared to hold it consistently. If that premise is based on the wording of L20F5(a), then the only thing "obviously" different behind screens is that following the dWS rigorously becomes more likely to negatively affect your score than to improve it. > Without screens, the indication provided by explanations is > perceptible > to all three players. So indicating to partner and indicating are > identical. And behind screens they're not identical. So it is only behind screens that the difference matters. That's why David's example requires screens. The test of an argument isn't whether it always applies in identical situations; it's whether it remains consistent across differing situations. > To summarize : no, we don't add the words "to partner", because they > would make no sense. What is there in, "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error during the auction, nor may he indicate to his partner in any manner that a mistake has been made," that makes no sense? It makes perfect sense to me. > Would you please all stop trying to guess (andd guessing wrongly) what > other peolpe think ? Have I done that? Perhaps so. I have, in effect, "guessed", from reading Herman's and Alain's posts, that they are treating the lack of the inclusion of the words "to his partner" as irrelevant to the meaning of the L20F5(a). As Alain writes above that "indicating to partner and indicating are identical", I don't see how that would qualify as "guessing wrongly". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Thu Dec 4 19:45:20 2008 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:45:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <49380C95.9070505@ulb.ac.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <4 9379EEF.1050401@bridgescore.de> <2a1c3a560812040129i4f20055dy30cb30ef87f9c 1 e0@mail.gmail.com><051E58AB-2377-4D99-A2FB-2319C0C96580@starpower.net> <4 937F592.7000804@ulb.ac.be><4938046D.7000700@meteo.fr> <49380C95.9070505@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49382540.4010708@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Jean-Pierre Rocafort a ?crit : >> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : >> >>> Eric Landau a ?crit : >>> >>>> On Dec 4, 2008, at 4:29 AM, Wayne Burrows wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> 2008/12/4 Christian Farwig (BLML) : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> the law requires a systematically higher requirement for an >>>>>> opening at >>>>>> the one level than for a pass. It does not require you to open >>>>>> *every* >>>>>> hand which formally fulfills the minimum requirements. Quite >>>>>> sensibly, >>>>>> since the value of a hand is certainly defined by more aspects than a >>>>>> mere point count. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> I think your logic is wrong since the wording of the HUM regulation >>>>> includes "may be weaker than pass". To me this means it is sufficient >>>>> to find one hand that you would pass that is stronger than the hand >>>>> that you opened (by partnership understanding - psyches are excluded) >>>>> in order for you method to be a HUM. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> True, but not the point. The question at issue here is whether >>>> "stronger than the hand that you opened" is to be defined strictly by >>>> HCP, or whether the player's own judgment may be brought to bear. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> AG : I'd say there is a second point : might there be a twilight zone of >>> hands you would open or not, according to circumstances ? >>> I'd open AKJxx / Qxxx ./ xx / xx about 20% of the time >>> and I'd open AKJ109 / Q9xx / xx / xx about 50% of the time. >>> >>> And in that case, finding a hand that one would occasdionally pass and >>> which is slightly stronger than a hand that one would occasionally open >>> would be too easy. >>> If this is HUM, then anybody but diehard walruses would be reputed to >>> play a HUM, which isn't the intent of the law. >>> >> ok, we use the letter of the law when we see it helpful and the intent >> of the law when we see it stupid. wtp? >> >> > AG : no problem for me, but you'd realize that the stupidity seen by one > person is seen as logical by the other. the problem is with ambiguous rules which are differently interpreted. I think, but i may be wrong, that the intent of the wbf rule is to classify HUM any system which requires to pass with some hands because they are too strong for a 1-level opening, hands you would have to open if you replaced some honor by a small card in the same suit. maybe it's so, but then it's badly worded. some years ago, there was a regulation for SHA (the french acronym for HUM): the system was sha if the 1NT opening didn't refer to a balanced opening (with the defintion of balanced following) with a narrow HCP range. someone complained about his 1NT opening which was the equivalent of a 5-card 1H natural opening. he was answered: sorry. he objected that many of his opponents used to open 1NT with a singleton: it was not the intent of the regulation! jpr > > See the ongoing thread about correcting information. > Some of us think that the interdiction to inform opponents of your > mistake is helpful, and they want to expel the player who would do it. > Some others think that the spirit of the law doesn't dictate this and > that it would be stupid to take it at the letter in this case. > And both groups are made of people with more or less sane minds. > > Best regards > > Alain > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 4 20:14:47 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 20:14:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ........... > >> I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" > > > > IMO YES. > > > > You are not allowed to have a partnership understanding where PASS in the > > opening position can show a stronger hand than an opening bid at the one > > level. > > > > The consequence is that if you want to open a hand that is (by definition) > > weaker than a hand that can be passed then you must open it at the two level > > or higher. > > > > I don't really see why such regulation is unreasonable? > > > > Regards Sven > > > > It isn't - but see my previous message about the definition of a hand > being weaker. > > You confuse two things: the wish of the SO to have an easy definition of > "weak", so that some halds can be considered too weak to open, and their > use of the word "weaker", without definition. They have allowed Axxxx > Axxxx x xx (under, say, the R18), but they have not stated that they > consider QJ QJ Qxxx Jxxxx to be "stronger" than the previous hand. > > This indeed means that there is no real test to check on this criterium, > but I don't believe one can find many pairs who would open the first > hand but not one where the singleton diamond is the jack. Don't be too sure about that. I deliberately wrote "(by definition) weaker", and the definition in the Norwegian regulation is to use the HCP scale 4-3-2-1 when measuring the strength of a hand for purpose of HUM judgments. If other regulating authorities have established a different definition (which of course is their privilege) then obviously their definition is the one that applies under their jurisdiction. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 4 22:31:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 08:31:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills quibbled: >>Alain's adjective "undeserved" is nowhere in the 2007 Lawbook Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >AG : nope, but it is part of common life ethics, and therefore >of "active ethics". Richard Hills refutes: Incorrect. Some common life ethics are in the Lawbook, notably in the various clauses of Law 74. Some common life ethics are specifically contrary to Law, notably helping a friend with an irrelevant question (when that friend is your partner) or helping a friend by prematurely exposing your cards (when that friend is an opponent). WBF Code of Practice (2008 edition), section on Ethics: "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." Richard Hills quibbled: >>4) Giving an unnecessary benefit to the other side, which >> they are not entitled by Law to receive, is a "throwing >> the match (dumping)" infraction; Law 72A. Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >If warning opponents that their inferences could be unvalid, >and by my fault, Richard Hills refutes: Petitio principii, begging the question. Law 75C clearly states that if Alain misbids, then Alain has not committed an infraction, so Alain cannot be at "fault". Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >is considered match dumping, then this game has evolved beyond >what I can bear. >I hope that is NOT what the 2007 Laws say. 2007 Law 72A: "Duplicate bridge tournaments should be played in strict accordance with the Laws. The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants whilst complying with the lawful procedures and ethical standards set out in these laws." Alain Gottcheiner asserted: >If it is, I'm seriously considering switching to more ethical >games. Richard Hills refutes: The ethics of a game are defined by the rules of that game, so it is a contradiction in terms to assert that Duplicate Bridge is unethical. Of course, it is possible that a game may be legal in one location but illegal in another. For example, the game of The Running With The Bulls is legal in Pamplona, but illegal in Canberra. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 23:42:02 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 09:42:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills quibbled: >>>What to say when Lord Voldemort himself has repeatedly made >>>self-incriminating comments about his intent to make silly >>>rulings? Notably Voldemort's Draco-nian interpretation of >>>the Law 85 criterion "balance of probabilities"? And >>>Voldemort's assertion that a coin-toss is a valid method >>>for a Director to use? [snip] Robert Frick misconstrued: >David Burn suggested that Herman would make a ruling that >Herman in fact would not make, and then (it seems to me) that >David made fun of this ruling and misrepresented Herman's >position. (Ironically, few blmler's agreed with David's ruling.) > >And then for his efforts to correct this, Herman is criticized >and ridiculed. David Burn: >>No, we didn't. We are still waiting for Herman's answer to >>the question: >>should a player behind a screen, who knows that his partner >>has given a mistaken explanation, correct that explanation to >>his screen-mate in breach of Law 20F5A? If so, why? Robert Frick misconstrued: >You are now pointing out, I hope, that Herman is the only one >who can appropriately be treated this way. Or maybe not, feel >free to clarify. Alain Gottcheiner complained: >Richard, I don't like your way to pretend that anybody that >doesn't exactly reason as the Master Richard Hills does is >automatically unable to make any valid reasoning. Richard Hills clarification: This forum discusses the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. It is contrary to the Laws of Bridge for a Director to decide a ruling by a coin-toss. If a blmler wishes to describe this statement as "Herman-bashing", so be it. It is contrary to the Laws of Bridge to play to lose. If a blmler wishes to complain that his contrary view is being presumed as "unable to make any valid reasoning", so be it. Of course, this forum also discusses whether or not current rules should be changed in 2018 to become a better fit with what the rules should be changed to. An inherently circular debate. In the False Cards thread I pointed out an unintended consequence of a hypothetical new 2018 Law change. A blmler failed to carefully read that posting, accusing me of instead misrepresenting the recently repealed De Wael School interpretation of the current old 2007 Law 20F5(a). What's the problem? Nigel Guthrie: >Ask not for what the poster trolls, >He trolls for thee. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Fri Dec 5 01:54:18 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 16:54:18 -0800 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:51:59 +1300." <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200812050050.QAA19618@mailhub.irvine.com> Wayne wrote: > Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from > time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to > conflict with the HUM regulations. > > The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands > otherwise you are playing a HUM: > > "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be > weaker than pass." Maybe this should be interpreted as meaning, "If your partnership agreements allow an opening bid at the one level on a specific hand, but require a pass on the hand that differs from the first hand only in that some low cards are replaced by honors, or that some honors are replaced by higher honors, then the system is a HUM". I think the intent is probably something like that... -- Adam From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 5 02:08:29 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 01:08:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> [AG] Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind screens is illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens [DALB] Obviously? Why so? The WBF and other bodies have regulations indicating which Laws are inoperative behind screens, and which Laws are modified in their operation behind screens. Law 20F5a is, to the best of my knowledge, not mentioned in any of these regulations - until it is, it is not "obviously off". Of course, the WBF no longer needs to modify its regulations; it has already modified the Law through the Beijing minutes. The original "overinformation" case involved a player who, having been given a correct explanation of an opponent's methods, was then given a correct explanation of that opponent's cards. This is not the canonical dWS case, it is true. But the principle in this case and the canonical dWS case is exactly the same, and is clearly set forth in Law 75. A player who has received a correct explanation of an opponent's methods is never entitled to, and should as far as possible never be given, a correct description of that opponent's cards (if the opponent has explained his own call) or that opponent's partner's cards (if the opponent has explained his partner's call). Only when screens are is use is it the case that a player explains his own call (except in rare situations where one player is sent away from the table). But that makes no difference; the principle involved still holds and is still paramount. Herman believes that in dWS cases, players are sometimes entitled to correct descriptions of an opponent's cards. He is in error, both legally and logically. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 5 02:18:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:18:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Litigious (was for the WBF) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002601c9552c$6263cf00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Harald Skj?ran: >>There's a fourth possibility: >>Maciej and his partner is extremely good at not using UI. Maciej Bystry >Yes, in my standing partnership both of us are the near- >fanatics of bending backwards in the presence of UI (similar >to Richard Hills as I understand). Richard Hills: Many years ago I received a useful Word from the Wise. My then partner subliminally twitched rather than obviously tanked, but the twitch did demonstrably suggest one of several logical alternative calls, and I did err in selecting the illegal call. As it happened my illegal call resulted in disaster, while choosing a legal call would have given me a better score. My undamaged RHO, a many-time national champion, therefore did not summon the Director, but did express his personal disappointment in a player of my calibre and expertise electing to choose an illegal call. Since then the only time that I can recall an expert opponent suggesting that I infracted Law 16 was at the last Darwin ANC, when I did indeed select a demonstrably suggested logical alternative. But the Director ruled that my call was the only logical alternative, and the Appeals Committee ruled that the other team's appeal was without merit. Maciej Bystry: >That doesn't mean that I (or my partner) actually never used >UI. It's very probable that there were such cases and nobody >realized it. I could bet that scanning through all my past >deals I would find a few in which the TD could rule that I had >some obscure LA and adjust. People in Poland generally are not >litigious and don't want to call the TD if they see that the >chosen bid is more or less obvious. Richard Hills: Anecdotal evidence suggests that inexperienced players of any nationality tend to eschew Law 16 litigiousness. And also anecdotal evidence suggests that the once-notoriously litigious ACBL experts are now less so, perhaps due to the well-known world-wide increase in the abilities of Directors. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Dec 5 04:25:22 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:25:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081205141953.07d24c28@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 03:52 AM 5/12/2008, you wrote: >Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:25 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > > > > >>> [AG] > >>> > >>> has anyone noticed that dWS is of no use behind screens, so that > >>> using > >>> "screens on" examples shows you didn't understand its basis ? > >>> > >>> [DALB] > >>> > >>> I understand perfectly well the basis for the dWS - indeed, not > >>> all that > >>> long ago Herman himself was kind enough to say that I had provided > >>> a good > >>> summary of his position. > >>> > >>> The basis for the dWS is this: in certain circumstances you are > >>> compelled to > >>> break some Law of the game, or violate some principle, or both. > >>> When your > >>> partner has misexplained a call (whether his own or, more usually, > >>> yours) > >>> and you are asked for an explanation of a subsequent calls (yours > >>> or, more > >>> usually, his) you must violate either: > >>> > >>> 1. the principle of non-communication other than by means of calls > >>> or plays > >>> (because your explanation will convey to partner that he has > >>> misunderstood); > >>> or > >>> 2. the principle of full disclosure (because if you misexplain the > >>> next call in > >>> order not to alert partner, you will misinform your opponents as > >>> to your > >>> methods). > >>> > >> No Sir. When there are screens there is no danger of conveying > >> information to partner, if your explanations are written, and they > >> should be. > >> Whence the problem doesn't exist. > >> > >> dWS is all about avoiding UI, and there ain't any UI in your > >> explanations when there are screens. > >> Hence, the 'in certain circumstances' you mentioned simply doesn't > >> happen behind screens. > >> It's as simple as that. > >> Don't you realize this ? > >> > > > > L20F5(a) has repeatedly been cited as the underlying justification of > > the dWS, whose author has, on countless occasions, rested his > > argument on the words "nor may he indicate in any manner that a > > mistake has been made". DALB merely points out that those who cite > > that phrase in support of the dWS choose to read it as though it > > contained the words "to partner" after "indicate", which it does not. > > >Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind screens is >illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens, and it isn't fair >to ask what it would suggest in such. cases. >Without screens, the indication provided by explanations is perceptible >to all three players. So indicating to partner and indicating are >identical. > >To summarize : no, we don't add the words "to partner", because they >would make no sense. > >Would you please all stop trying to guess (andd guessing wrongly) what >other peolpe think ? I think Herman would rule exactly the same as any other director in this hypothetical. Indeed, I believe he would also rule identically to us in the classic DWS cases. He may allow himself "what you are doing is better for the game, but I am still obliged to rule according to the Laws". But I am only guessing, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 5 06:02:18 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:02:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> Message-ID: On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:08:29 -0500, David Burn wrote: > Herman believes that in dWS cases, players are sometimes > entitled to correct descriptions of an opponent's cards. He is in error, > both legally and logically. Contents? Herman has argued that the opponents are entitled, under any circumstances, to know the opponent's cards? That is so contrary to the rules of bridge, which so much stress divulging partnership agreements. I can't believe Herman made that mistake. Actually, I don't believe he did. For various reasons, I don't follow Herman very closely. So maybe he said that. But I think I would have noticed. In every posting I can recall, my memory is that he was advocating the divulgence of partnershp agreements, not contents. "entitled"? To tell the truth, that one is hard for me to believe too. Has Herman suggested that people should be giving procedural penalties for not following dWS? (Or kicked out of bridge or whatever else has been suggested for players who do follow dWS.) Has Herman suggested that players should be punished for the noncreation of MI (or whatever bad thing happens to you when you use dWS) when they don't use dWS? Herman, I public call on you to change your mind. Say it ain't so. Say that players should be able to choose the alternative to dWS if they want to. Oh, you already did that. Nevermind. MY POINT IMO, it is dangerous to state a person's position and then attack it. The main danger is mischaracterizing the person's position. The second problem is that at least some readers will ignore the attack when they realize what is happening. The third problem is loss of reputation, maybe for just doing it and certainly when the person's position is (rightly or wrongly) perceived as a mischaracterization. I am guessing that sometimes this is called for. But if one is going to do that, I urge care and caution. The alternative, which I find attractive, is to state an opinion without involving another person. Here, David could have just stated his opinion (such as that players should not be required to divulge hand contents) and left Herman out of it. Bob, who would prefer to discuss the laws but is having some of his sensitive buttons pushed From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 5 06:40:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:40:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> Message-ID: The tragically prematurely late Matt Price, 16th February 2003: Others were more concerned with his denunciation of Bush as "the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory". The voice on the phone was familiar: "Comrade, my memory goes back to Calvin Coolidge -- he was incompetent, but not dangerous." It was Gough Whitlam, who had held Latham's seat of Werriwa for 26 years and later employed the young firebrand as a researcher. They joked about American presidents, agreeing that while Richard Nixon was "dangerous but not incompetent", Jimmy Carter, like Coolidge, was "incompetent but not dangerous". 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." Eric Landau (neither incompetent nor dangerous): >>But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a >>partnership to supply a "100% complete encyclopedia" David Burn (incompetent but not dangerous): >No, it does not, any more than "Passengers must take all their >personal belongings with them when leaving the train" means >that you may not board the train having left any of your >personal possessions at home. Richard Hills (dangerous but not incompetent): David's analogy falls to the ground by assuming that Law 40A1(b) permits partnership understandings to be "left at home". Not so. A simple reductio ad absurdum proves this is false. Suppose the Regulating Authority has failed to create any Law 40 regulations. By David's analogy a partnership could then leave all its understandings "at home", and not disclose anything to its opponents before commencing play. A Regulating Authority may specify that 79% of a partnership's understandings must be written on the System Card (and for 6% of that 79% to be pre-Alerted). But the remaining 21% of a partnership's understandings must still be "available" to the opponents before commencing play. Of course, "make available" does _not_ have a one-to-one correspondence with "automatic logorrhea". Rather, the opposing pair can discover what it wants to know about the 21% via questions and answers before commencing play. And if there are "unknown unknowns" -- crucial questions that the opposing pair could not know it needed to ask -- then the opposing pair is fully protected by 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." Richard Nixon (dangerous but not incompetent): "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 5 09:18:42 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:18:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4938E3E2.4090807@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind >> screens is >> illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens, and it isn't >> fair >> to ask what it would suggest in such. cases. > > Why isn't it fair? If you have a theoretical premise for your views, > you should be prepared to hold it consistently. If that premise is > based on the wording of L20F5(a), then the only thing "obviously" > different behind screens is that following the dWS rigorously becomes > more likely to negatively affect your score than to improve it. > Of course there is nothing unfair about asking my opinion, but it is terribly unfair to suggest that one knows the answer. Also, to suggest that I did not answer was unfait - I thought that I did, and I really did not see what I had to bring to the discussion. As Alain said, the DWS has no views about actions behind screens. If you want to ask HDW about actions behind screens, one can do so, but one should not expect earth-shattering answers. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 09:23:22 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:23:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> Message-ID: <4938E4FA.5000903@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [AG] > > Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind screens is > illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens > > [DALB] > > Obviously? Why so? The WBF and other bodies have regulations indicating > which Laws are inoperative behind screens, and which Laws are modified in > their operation behind screens. Law 20F5a is, to the best of my knowledge, > not mentioned in any of these regulations - until it is, it is not > "obviously off". > Of course it is "obviously off": it cannot even enter in operation: since a player cannot know what his partner is explaining, he cannot correct any mistakes. You ask me what I would do if my partner's (wrong) explanation reaches the other side of the screen - well, I would do nothing. I would simply explain my version of the bidding, and allow my screen-mate to understand that we were having a bidding misunderstanding. After the deal, I would investigate why the explanation reached us. If it is my partner's doing, I will hit him, if it is the opponent's, I will call the TD and ask him to rule UI. But this has nothing to do with DWS. Well, nothing apart from my person, but unless you are going to group my views on revokes into DWS too, leave this out as well. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 09:27:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> Message-ID: <4938E609.1040004@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Herman believes that in dWS cases, players are sometimes > entitled to correct descriptions of an opponent's cards. He is in error, > both legally and logically. > How can you say this! You have, after 12 years, still not understood any part of this. Opponents are entitled to the system, pure and simple. No discussion. Opponents do not always get their entitlements, and the TD will adjust. In dWS cases, it is IMO acceptable to give a deliberate MI, in order to follow L20F5a, and some other laws that tell a player not to give UI to his partner. But this is not any entitlement, this is not in any way correct information. It is just the only way a player can avoid giving UI to partner, and avoid revealing the misunderstanding to opponents. And if you, once again, misdescribe my views, I shall, once again, tell you off for doing so. Please stop it. Herman. > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 09:32:22 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:32:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> Message-ID: <4938E716.6030800@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:08:29 -0500, David Burn > wrote: > >> Herman believes that in dWS cases, players are sometimes >> entitled to correct descriptions of an opponent's cards. He is in error, >> both legally and logically. > > > Contents? Herman has argued that the opponents are entitled, under any > circumstances, to know the opponent's cards? That is so contrary to the > rules of bridge, which so much stress divulging partnership agreements. I > can't believe Herman made that mistake. > I am glad Robert has some confidence. But many out there will not have that confidence. They will read David's post, believe that this indeed describes my views, and agree with David (and myself) that those views are lunatic. If David does this on purpose, I will ask for severe apologies. I prefer to believe David did not do it on purpose, but it leaves me with not much good to be said for David's powers of perception over the last 12 years. > Actually, I don't believe he did. For various reasons, I don't follow > Herman very closely. So maybe he said that. But I think I would have > noticed. In every posting I can recall, my memory is that he was > advocating the divulgence of partnershp agreements, not contents. > > "entitled"? To tell the truth, that one is hard for me to believe too. Has > Herman suggested that people should be giving procedural penalties for not > following dWS? (Or kicked out of bridge or whatever else has been > suggested for players who do follow dWS.) Has Herman suggested that > players should be punished for the noncreation of MI (or whatever bad > thing happens to you when you use dWS) when they don't use dWS? > > Herman, I public call on you to change your mind. Say it ain't so. Say > that players should be able to choose the alternative to dWS if they want > to. > I don't need to change my mind, David was completely wrong in suggesting that these were my views. > Oh, you already did that. Nevermind. > Indeed I did. My aim is to have both CEs and SEs deemed "acceptable". If you are then a masochistic player who believes SEs are the way to go, so be it. I'll gladly accept your presents. > MY POINT > IMO, it is dangerous to state a person's position and then attack it. The > main danger is mischaracterizing the person's position. The second problem > is that at least some readers will ignore the attack when they realize > what is happening. The third problem is loss of reputation, maybe for just > doing it and certainly when the person's position is (rightly or wrongly) > perceived as a mischaracterization. > > I am guessing that sometimes this is called for. But if one is going to do > that, I urge care and caution. > > The alternative, which I find attractive, is to state an opinion without > involving another person. Here, David could have just stated his opinion > (such as that players should not be required to divulge hand contents) and > left Herman out of it. > > Bob, who would prefer to discuss the laws but is having some of his > sensitive buttons pushed > Thanks, Bob! Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 09:38:31 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:38:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> Message-ID: <4938E887.8070107@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> >> This indeed means that there is no real test to check on this criterium, >> but I don't believe one can find many pairs who would open the first >> hand but not one where the singleton diamond is the jack. > > Don't be too sure about that. > ??? OK I'll bow to your obviously superior knowledge about what bridge players in Norway are likely to do. > I deliberately wrote "(by definition) weaker", and the definition in the > Norwegian regulation is to use the HCP scale 4-3-2-1 when measuring the > strength of a hand for purpose of HUM judgments. > Sorry Sven, I did not know that. I had no idea the Norwegian regulations would contain any part which is so obviously faulty as to create incredulity about the fact that Norwegian players would not laugh this one out of the regulation book. Have you ever fined any Norwegian player for not opening a 4333 10-count, saying "you opened a 6520 9-count earlier, if you do not open all 10-counts, you are playing HUM". And if you have, did the laughter stop in time for the round to be finished on time? > If other regulating authorities have established a different definition > (which of course is their privilege) then obviously their definition is the > one that applies under their jurisdiction. > Well Sven, not knowing the Norwegian regulations, I was talking about the Belgian ones, which are more or less identical to the WBF ones. > Sven > Herman. From wjburrows at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:11:24 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 22:11:24 +1300 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4938E887.8070107@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> <4938E887.8070107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560812050111x1f60cf23y69cbcfe8f904f689@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/5 Herman De Wael : > Sven Pran wrote: >>> >>> This indeed means that there is no real test to check on this criterium, >>> but I don't believe one can find many pairs who would open the first >>> hand but not one where the singleton diamond is the jack. >> >> Don't be too sure about that. >> > > ??? > OK I'll bow to your obviously superior knowledge about what bridge > players in Norway are likely to do. > >> I deliberately wrote "(by definition) weaker", and the definition in the >> Norwegian regulation is to use the HCP scale 4-3-2-1 when measuring the >> strength of a hand for purpose of HUM judgments. >> > > Sorry Sven, I did not know that. > I had no idea the Norwegian regulations would contain any part which is > so obviously faulty as to create incredulity about the fact that > Norwegian players would not laugh this one out of the regulation book. > > Have you ever fined any Norwegian player for not opening a 4333 > 10-count, saying "you opened a 6520 9-count earlier, if you do not open > all 10-counts, you are playing HUM". > And if you have, did the laughter stop in time for the round to be > finished on time? > >> If other regulating authorities have established a different definition >> (which of course is their privilege) then obviously their definition is the >> one that applies under their jurisdiction. >> > > Well Sven, not knowing the Norwegian regulations, I was talking about > the Belgian ones, which are more or less identical to the WBF ones. > >> Sven >> > While what you say makes some sense there is a with your interpretation Herman. That is the strong hand : KQ QJ Qxxx Jxxxx "high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand" is weaker than the weak hand AJ10xxx A109xxx x - "high card strength below that of an average hand" -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Dec 5 10:32:25 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:32:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> Message-ID: On 04/12/2008, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > ........... > > >> I suppose the query is "Is this the intention of the regulations?" > > > > > > IMO YES. > > > > > > You are not allowed to have a partnership understanding where PASS in > the > > > opening position can show a stronger hand than an opening bid at the one > > > level. > > > > > > The consequence is that if you want to open a hand that is (by > definition) > > > weaker than a hand that can be passed then you must open it at the two > level > > > or higher. > > > > > > I don't really see why such regulation is unreasonable? > > > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > > > It isn't - but see my previous message about the definition of a hand > > being weaker. > > > > You confuse two things: the wish of the SO to have an easy definition of > > "weak", so that some halds can be considered too weak to open, and their > > use of the word "weaker", without definition. They have allowed Axxxx > > Axxxx x xx (under, say, the R18), but they have not stated that they > > consider QJ QJ Qxxx Jxxxx to be "stronger" than the previous hand. > > > > This indeed means that there is no real test to check on this criterium, > > but I don't believe one can find many pairs who would open the first > > hand but not one where the singleton diamond is the jack. > > Don't be too sure about that. > > I deliberately wrote "(by definition) weaker", and the definition in the > Norwegian regulation is to use the HCP scale 4-3-2-1 when measuring the > strength of a hand for purpose of HUM judgments. That's not correct. Our rules regarding legal systems define HUM as: 1. An opening pass promises of can include a strong hand. 2. A 1-level opening bid can be weaker than pass in the same position. 3. A 1-level opening bid can promise or include a weak hand. 4. A 1-level opening bid can alternatively promise shortness or length in a suit. 5. A 1-level opening bid can promise either length in a specific suit of in ono er several other suits. Weak hand is defined as a hand lacking a king to be an average hand. Strong hand is defined as having at least a king more than an average hand. An average hand a hand containing a honour of each rank. There's no mention of hcp. > > If other regulating authorities have established a different definition > (which of course is their privilege) then obviously their definition is the > one that applies under their jurisdiction. > > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From svenpran at online.no Fri Dec 5 12:22:52 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:22:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <4938E887.8070107@skynet.be> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> <4938E887.8070107@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c956cb$d00ca810$7025f830$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael .............. > Have you ever fined any Norwegian player for not opening a 4333 > 10-count, saying "you opened a 6520 9-count earlier, if you do not open > all 10-counts, you are playing HUM". First of all, I made one mistake in saying that we explicitly specify the 4-3-2-1 count, what we do is to specify that strength evaluation for HUM purposes relate on the HCP values only. And yes, we rule HUM if the agreement is that a 9HCP hand can be opened at the one-level while a hand with at least 10 HCP can be passed in the same position. (We had in fact this very situation at the Norwegian championships last summer) > And if you have, did the laughter stop in time for the round to be > finished on time? There was no laughter, only appreciation. > > > If other regulating authorities have established a different definition > > (which of course is their privilege) then obviously their definition is the > > one that applies under their jurisdiction. > > > > Well Sven, not knowing the Norwegian regulations, I was talking about > the Belgian ones, which are more or less identical to the WBF ones. The Norwegian regulation on HUM is as far as I know identical to the WBF ones. Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 5 12:41:27 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:41:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> Message-ID: <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com> [RJH] "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." Eric Landau (neither incompetent nor dangerous): But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a partnership to supply a "100% complete encyclopedia" David Burn (incompetent but not dangerous): No, it does not, any more than "Passengers must take all their personal belongings with them when leaving the train" means that you may not board the train having left any of your personal possessions at home. Richard Hills (dangerous but not incompetent): David's analogy falls to the ground by assuming that Law 40A1(b) permits partnership understandings to be "left at home". Not so. A simple reductio ad absurdum proves this is false. Suppose the Regulating Authority has failed to create any Law 40 regulations. By David's analogy a partnership could then leave all its understandings "at home", and not disclose anything to its opponents before commencing play. [DALB] This reductio is indeed simple, but also absurd. A Regulating Authority is not permitted to fail to create any Law 40 regulations, because the second sentence of L40A1(b) compels it to do so. It would be permissible for a Regulating Authority to say "before commencing play, you must tell your opponents your no-trump range and whether you play four- or five-card majors; if your opponents want to find out what else you're doing, they must use Law 20 and elicit the required information by means of alerts and explanations, but they must not ask irrelevant questions". Indeed, this is pretty much what the Regulating Authority in England does. True, it also mandates the use of a convention card, which can be exchanged with that of the opponents before play begins, but almost no one ever does this. For myself, I don't mind a position such as Eric's, under which my opponents can ask me anything they like. All I say is that such an interpretation does not follow unambiguously from the Laws as written; that is, in L40A1(b) "its" does not unambiguously mean "all of its" (just as the word does not always have this meaning in common speech). David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 5 12:44:03 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 11:44:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4938E609.1040004@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> <4938E609.1040004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c956ce$c63d5610$52b80230$@com> [HdW] Opponents are entitled to the system, pure and simple. No discussion. [...] In dWS cases, it is IMO acceptable to give a deliberate MI [DALB] Res ipsa loquitur. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 5 13:15:48 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:15:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <4938E716.6030800@skynet.be> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> <4938E716.6030800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c956d3$35b93c30$a12bb490$@com> [RF] Contents? Herman has argued that the opponents are entitled, under any circumstances, to know the opponent's cards? [DALB] Yes, of course he has. When my partner bids 5D believing it to show one ace when in fact it shows better diamonds than clubs, Herman believes that the opponents are entitled to know that my partner has one ace, because I am legally entitled to explain it as one ace and Herman believes that I should do so. The legal entitlement to misexplain the call has been removed by the Beijing minute, but unfortunately this did not appear twelve years ago. In fairness, Herman also believes that I am legally entitled to (but in his view should not) explain it as minor-suit preference, and that in some fashion the Laws should allow me to choose which course of action I follow. But if I do that, the opponents are then entitled to enquire "What would 5D mean if it were a response to Blackwood?" (at least, that is what he has believed in the past; I am not sure whether he still believes it, but there are many others here who do). In either case, Herman has persistently argued that my opponents are allowed to know what my partner has, not what he has shown. David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 5 13:33:03 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:33:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49391F7F.4050200@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 4, 2008, at 11:52 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >>>> . >>>> >>> Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind >>> screens is >>> illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens, and it isn't >>> fair >>> to ask what it would suggest in such. cases. >>> >> >> Why isn't it fair? AG : Because it should be obvious that dWS is not used behind screens, so there is no answer to the question "what does dWS suggest behind screens ?". > >> If you have a theoretical premise for your views, you should be prepared to hold it consistently. AG My theoretical premise is the following : When giving correct explanations would cause UI (and all problems that can follow from it, for the players, the TD and other competitors), one should be allowed to exercise one's judgement not to give them, being ready to pay the price for it. The obvious consequence is : Since giving explanations behind screens doesn't cause UI, the problem is solved by using the MS principles and you don't need dWS. : > Have I done that? Perhaps so. I have, in effect, "guessed", from > reading Herman's and Alain's posts, that they are treating the lack > of the inclusion of the words "to his partner" as irrelevant to the > meaning of the L20F5(a). As Alain writes above that "indicating to > partner and indicating are identical", I don't see how that would > qualify as "guessing wrongly". > I meant that, without screens (and you'd now be aware that it's the only interesting case), indicating to partner and indicating to everybody are logically equivalent. It isn't that I consider the omission of those three words irrelevant, I see it as obvious because they're not necessary But it's true that, behind screens, the situation is different. Is the spirit of the law that saying to your opponent "I think a wheel has come loose", behind screens, in a low enough voice that they can't hear you on the other side, is disallowed and could encur a penalty? At least, that's what's written. But I don't think that's what was intended. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 5 13:39:38 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:39:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4939210A.2080903@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Petitio principii, begging the question. Law 75C clearly > states that if Alain misbids, then Alain has not committed an > infraction, so Alain cannot be at "fault". > > AG : you're the one who doesn't reason correctly. The word "fault" is from common life, not from bridge laws, so it should be given a common life definition, not a bridge definition. > Richard Hills refutes: > > The ethics of a game are defined by the rules of that game, so > it is a contradiction in terms to assert that Duplicate Bridge > is unethical. > AG : any laws that encourage lawyering are unethical in my philisophy, and some bridge laws do. And thank you for mentioning the san Fermin ; it has a place in my heart. (although I don't agree with the ensuing slaughter. Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 5 13:46:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:46:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <200812050050.QAA19618@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200812050050.QAA19618@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <49392292.6040204@ulb.ac.be> Adam Beneschan a ?crit : > Wayne wrote: > > >> Lets say your partnership has the agreement in third seat to open from >> time to time Helgemo style 1H but with at least 8 hcp so as not to >> conflict with the HUM regulations. >> >> The consequence of this is that you must now open all 9+ hcp hands >> otherwise you are playing a HUM: >> >> "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be >> weaker than pass." >> > > Maybe this should be interpreted as meaning, "If your partnership > agreements allow an opening bid at the one level on a specific hand, > but require a pass on the hand that differs from the first hand only > in that some low cards are replaced by honors, or that some honors are > replaced by higher honors, then the system is a HUM". > > I think the intent is probably something like that... > AG : it could well be the case. But then, if my style is to open (say 3rd-in-hand) on KJxxx AJxx xx xx but not on AJxxx AJxx xx xx because the lead indication is more important in the first case, then I'm using a HUM. This in itself is a problem, because it discourages good bridge. The late Roger Silberwasser said that you should always bid your long suit if you want to demand a lead from Qx. Obviously, the first hand satisfies this criterion more than the second. Also, there surely are players who would open on Qxxxxx AQx xx xx but not on Qxxxxx AQx Qx xx because there are less reasons to want to play the hand. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 5 13:49:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:49:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> Message-ID: <4939236D.7020906@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > Asking what dWS recommends in a situation that happens behind screens is > illogical in se : dWS is obviously off behind screens > > [DALB] > > Obviously? Why so? The WBF and other bodies have regulations indicating > which Laws are inoperative behind screens, and which Laws are modified in > their operation behind screens. Law 20F5a is, to the best of my knowledge, > not mentioned in any of these regulations - until it is, it is not > "obviously off". > AG : okay. Let's say it is of no use, because the problem it aims at solving (UI) is already solved by the presence of screens. Perhaps I was wrong to call this 'obvious'. But now it shoul be understood.. > > Only when screens are is use is it the case that a player explains his own > call (except in rare situations where one player is sent away from the > table). But that makes no difference; the principle involved still holds and > is still paramount. Herman believes that in dWS cases, players are sometimes > entitled to correct descriptions of an opponent's cards. He is in error, > both legally and logically. > AG : AFAIC thios is an independent matter, and I don't agree with him, or at least not to that extent. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 14:17:15 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:17:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <001301c956d3$35b93c30$a12bb490$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> <4938E716.6030800@skynet.be> <001301c956d3$35b93c30$a12bb490$@com> Message-ID: <493929DB.6000004@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [RF] > > Contents? Herman has argued that the opponents are entitled, under any > circumstances, to know the opponent's cards? > > [DALB] > > Yes, of course he has. No of course he hasn't. He has said that he advocates answering in that way, but not that the opponents are entitled to that. In fact, I recently admitted that Maciej was probably true in saying that the opponents are _not_ entitled to that information, since it is in fact a misbid. > When my partner bids 5D believing it to show one ace > when in fact it shows better diamonds than clubs, Herman believes that the > opponents are entitled to know that my partner has one ace, because I am > legally entitled to explain it as one ace and Herman believes that I should > do so. See above, quite wrong. > The legal entitlement to misexplain the call has been removed by the > Beijing minute, but unfortunately this did not appear twelve years ago. > > In fairness, Herman also believes that I am legally entitled to (but in his > view should not) explain it as minor-suit preference, don't call this entitled. call this "allowed". Entitled in these discussions should be reserved to information the opponents will receive an adjustment for if they don't receive it at the proper time. > and that in some > fashion the Laws should allow me to choose which course of action I follow. Indeed. > But if I do that, the opponents are then entitled to enquire "What would 5D > mean if it were a response to Blackwood?" (at least, that is what he has > believed in the past; I am not sure whether he still believes it, but there > are many others here who do). > Again, wrong. if you answer that 5Di shows diamond preference, then you are (IMCurrentO) not required to also reveal that it shows 1 ace in his system. > In either case, Herman has persistently argued that my opponents are allowed > to know what my partner has, not what he has shown. > Well, what he thought he has shown (he may still have mistaken or psyched his Blackwood response). And again: use entitled, not allowed. Of course they are allowed to know this, if you choose to tell them - it does not become UI. But, this discussion is whether they are entitled to that information. If you are just saying that I believed they were entitled to this, then you are right, up until a few days ago. Now let's go back to the original sentence that you commented on: > Contents? Herman has argued that the opponents are entitled, under any > circumstances, to know the opponent's cards? Of course this is poppycock - I never said that, or anything like it. First of all, it should be intentions, not cards; Secondly, I said that I would answer in that manner, not that opponents are entitled to it; Thirdly, this answer is only correct in the dws situation. I would never say that a players' intentions are entitled information to opponents. Not in cases of simple misbids. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 14:22:12 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <000c01c956ce$c63d5610$52b80230$@com> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <000a01c9560b$caa54eb0$5fefec10$@com> <4937D97C.7080608@skynet.be> <000c01c9561b$a46c3370$ed449a50$@com> <4937EB3C.2020202@ulb.ac.be> <000d01c95623$12f1f260$38d5d720$@com> <4937F669.907@ulb.ac.be> <701BC6C9-A797-4CC0-9AC2-708976B7146A@starpower.net> <49380AC6.1050305@ulb.ac.be> <000101c95675$fc0ecac0$f42c6040$@com> <4938E609.1040004@skynet.be> <000c01c956ce$c63d5610$52b80230$@com> Message-ID: <49392B04.1080007@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > Opponents are entitled to the system, pure and simple. No discussion. > > [...] > > In dWS cases, it is IMO acceptable to give a deliberate MI > > [DALB] > > Res ipsa loquitur. > My latin is deficient. But if you try to say that these statement are inconsistent, then you are not right. Opponents are entitled to know the system - If you don't tell them that, they will be compensated. If you forget a part of your system, and you misexplain partner's call, you have given MI. Opponents are entitled to know the real meaning, and they don't, so they will be compensated. You will not be penalised any further. Inadvertently giving MI is therefor acceptable. There is nothing inconsistent in these two sentences. Similarly, giving a deliberate MI in dws situations could be called acceptable. There is nothing inconsistent with the fact that the correct information is still an entitlement to opponents. Which does not prove that this must be acceptable, only that David's logic is false and that the two statements are quite compatible. Herman. > David Burn > London, England > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 5 14:25:16 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:25:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Another HUM query In-Reply-To: <000101c956cb$d00ca810$7025f830$@no> References: <2a1c3a560812040051v52dc4942xd89cb4d7bb622744@mail.gmail.com> <000301c955f1$4e68cc60$eb3a6520$@no> <2a1c3a560812040126m60aedf5bob0c9ba11f0d7603b@mail.gmail.com> <000401c955f8$16d75170$4485f450$@no> <4937C45A.3060207@skynet.be> <000301c95644$92956940$b7c03bc0$@no> <4938E887.8070107@skynet.be> <000101c956cb$d00ca810$7025f830$@no> Message-ID: <49392BBC.1020507@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > .............. >> Have you ever fined any Norwegian player for not opening a 4333 >> 10-count, saying "you opened a 6520 9-count earlier, if you do not open >> all 10-counts, you are playing HUM". > > First of all, I made one mistake in saying that we explicitly specify the > 4-3-2-1 count, what we do is to specify that strength evaluation for HUM > purposes relate on the HCP values only. > > And yes, we rule HUM if the agreement is that a 9HCP hand can be opened at > the one-level while a hand with at least 10 HCP can be passed in the same > position. (We had in fact this very situation at the Norwegian championships > last summer) > >> And if you have, did the laughter stop in time for the round to be >> finished on time? > > There was no laughter, only appreciation. > >>> If other regulating authorities have established a different definition >>> (which of course is their privilege) then obviously their definition is > the >>> one that applies under their jurisdiction. >>> >> Well Sven, not knowing the Norwegian regulations, I was talking about >> the Belgian ones, which are more or less identical to the WBF ones. > > The Norwegian regulation on HUM is as far as I know identical to the WBF > ones. > Well, since the WBF regulations do not stipulate what you stated above is stipulated in Norway (but which Harald has already told us is not true), your post here contains a clear contradiction. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 5 16:10:21 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:10:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] ascertaining degree of error Message-ID: <4939445D.6070207@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, Here is a live case from yesterday evening. Flight C teams, East is a seasoned player, West a promising tenderfoot, N/S are male LOLs. E/W style fairly straightforward (i.e. 'if undiscussed, it is to play'). West East 1C pass 2Ha pass pass 2NT p 3D Axx xxx AJx KQ10x Qxxx A10 10xx KJ86 2H : alerted, asked and explained as 'weak'. Before deciding whether to reopen, East asks more precision about strength and is told 'about an 8-count'. E/W call the TD (YT) and West claims that he had been misinformed, that apparently South has a very weak hand (indeed) and that, because there are only 40 HCP in a pack and 2H had been explained as not so weak after all, he thought partner's 2NT couldn't be natural, so it had to be some sort of takeout bid (minors ?) to which he answered 3D. Had he known that his side could have as much as 24 HCP, he would have taken 2NT as natural, and bid 3NT. East claims he would have no problem in winning 3NT : it is fairly natural to take the presumed Heart lead in dummy, and start with C10 (small to the 8 would have worked too). Asked about how they'd play, two players of roughly the same level as East found this line fairly easily. So, if we do agree with West's claim, we should score the board as 3NT = (for a 7 IMP swing). But the question, of course, is : did West make such an error (letting himself be influenced into believing 2NT must have been artificial, contrary to their style) that we need to reject his claim ? And is it dependent on his experience level ? Notice that's irrelevant, but none of the 5 tables established this reasonable 3NT (1H overcall, anyone ?). Thank you for the advice Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 17:02:10 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:02:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl><004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl> <43011377-6083-45B2-A67F-6F4D69C1A69F@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00e401c956f2$d5063d00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > The ACBL has offered the following: When asked the meaning of a > call, one should disclose not only one's agreement about that > particular call, but also any other partnership agreements that may > be relevant to understanding that call. > > I take this (admittedly without evidence from authority) to be the > ACBL's interpretation of the references to "relevance" in L20F1 (that > would, admittedly, be the 1997 version, but I don't think that matters). > > The alternative interpretation, offered by Maciej, would be: When > asked the meaning of a call, one should disclose one's agreements > about that call only if the call is relevant to the immediate auction. > > One argument for choosing the former interpretation over the latter > rests on the fact that the ACBL (and the WBF) have, for decades now, > regularly issued regulations and interpretations that have expanded, > rather than reduced, the scope of the disclosure requirements, and it > would seem odd for them to suddenly reverse course. a) as you perfectly know ACBL's ideas are of different levels of reason (like any other NBO's or ZO's ideas). You're claiming that they are so keen on full disclosure but simultaneously they do not require the pairs playing e.g. Precision to warn their opponents. Yes, I know, everybody can look at the CC, but I also know that many people do not look. In my opinion it would be much more helpful for an average player to force his opponents to warn him before the play commences about non-standard system than to allow him to ask about Blackwood in an auction 1S-pass-2S-pass-pass. I have never seen any case in which lack of disclosing irrelevant agreements during the auction resulted in damage, but I saw some cases in which lack of pre-alert caused damage (even if this damage is not redressed according to ACBL's policy). b) you still seem to misunderstand my position. I do not want to reduce the scope of disclosure requirements. I simply want to have a law which is a kind of a guard against unnecessary and irritating questioning. And even 20F1 isn't enough against some pushy players who ask questions from mere curiosity. This habit often puts me off stride and serves no purpose. I have to accept requirements of 20F1 because some people are really interested and want to follow the auction - that's sometimes very important and needed. So to help them I'm also forced to answer tons of unnecessary questions. But if you want to force me to answer even more questions which this time would serve no purpose to *anybody*, don't be surprised that I strongly oppose it. The appropriate time to ask such questions is *before commencing play* (as it is written in L40A1(b)), then it won't disturb anybody's thought process. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 17:15:42 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:15:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4936453A.4030101@skynet.be><000e01c95529$7bdbeb00$15844c59@chello.pl> <49367D82.70700@skynet.be><001101c9554d$baa22100$15844c59@chello.pl> <49369A54.5000503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00ec01c956f4$b89a51e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Come off it, Maciej. > You claim to have had misbids, but never misinformations? Never say never. I surely had. Rarely. Not resulting in damage. Lucky am I? Sure. Now I'm less lucky having to respond to the unbeliever who isn't able to understand that some people in the world treat bridge seriously. > So when you forgot your system it was always when you were bidding > yourself, never when partner was bidding? No. To cause TD intervention following things must happen - I have to forget (very seldom, I'm young and play quite simple system), the opponents have to ask, there has to be damage (till now never, not surprising because forgets nearly always lead to one's own disaster). Still don't understand? My friend will gladly explain the basics of statistics to you at a fair stake. > I find that very hard to believe. > But as I said, it doesn't matter. > Why am I even writing about it? > Probably just to get the last word in. Probably. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 17:32:02 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:32:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net><003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl><005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl><4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> <49368F27.5080603@connecttime.net> Message-ID: <00f201c956f7$00bf07c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > And my 3S example leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I will retell it. I bid > 2Di (alerted and incorrectly explained by partner as multi), my partner > bids 3S, and I bid 3NT, ending the auction. I now reveal that my 2Di bid > was misexplained. Opponents ask about the meaning of the 3S call, and I > describe it as natural, showing a good spade suit. > > Opening leader avoids leading a spade from KQxxx, and dummy comes down > with two small spades. Since I don't have a spade stopper either, they > have made the wrong opening lead and I get a top. Opponents discover that > I knew all along that partner intended his bid to be asking for a spade > stopper (by partnership agreement on responses to a multi 2Di when it does > occur). > > I feel bad getting a top through a bidding misunderstanding. But that > happens all of the time and I can deal with it. I feel very bad about the > intentional misleading explanation of partner's 3S call. (Maciej has > argued that (expert) players will realize that the explanation of the 3S > is invalid and they don't have any idea what the 3S bid meant, but that > just makes it worse when this happens against inexpert players.) The auction goes 2D-3S-3NT, but not questioned. Now after the bidding they ask for an explanation and you tell them that all is natural. The opening leader has KQxxx of spades but leads something else. You get a top. Do you change the score now and offer 3NT -1 to your opponents? They had no real chance to get it right, they were totally fixed. It should seem unfair to you, shouldn't it? But no, you won't offer them the correction. Instead you insist on telling them what 3S means in your example in spite of the fact that every sane player on this planet would know that 3S was based on misconception and it's very probable that it means something different than "spades". And every player (excluding real begginers) would lead a spade with closed eyes and without looking at his own holding (unless he has something like AK in the other suit and can safely check what will be in dummy). I have nothing against fairness and feeling bad about getting undeserved tops. But I don't like that kind of inconsistency. Want to make misbids unlawful? Join Bobby Wolff in his crusade, the 2017(18) revision is ahead. I will remain in the opposition but will obey the laws. I can guarantee you that *I* won't be at loss. The thousands (milions?) of bunnies will be, being deprived of their only real chance to get a good score against better players. > Bob Frick Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 17:38:51 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:38:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <010801c956f7$f4ad9fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > > Yes, it seems that Calcutta tournaments would be illegal in the UK, > not just because the bridge players are unclothed, but also because > those players who have bet on their current opponents would have an > inherent conflict of interest. In my opinion side bets are actually very beneficial for bridge. Yes, some cheats may slip through, but there are many pairs who have a bad tournament and they know it after e.g. 2 sessions of 5 - most of them stop playing real bridge and they have a great unnecessary impact on final results (excluding swiss pairs), unless of course they made a side bet with their friends, especially when the difference in final placements counts. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 17:48:49 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:48:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, >> Trying to avoid gaining undeserved benefits from one's >> forgetting one's system can hardly be called an infraction. > Alain's adjective > "undeserved" is nowhere in the 2007 Lawbook AG : nope, but it is part of common life ethics, and therefore of "active ethics". MB: Interesting. So you consider gains from misbids as unethical? Because they mislead the opponents? But I think I saw your past emails in which you strongly defended everybody's right to psyche. Psyche is very similar to misbid, but it's intentional. So, following your reasoning, gains from psyches are grossly unethical. Yes, interesting. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 17:59:37 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:59:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com><4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > Herman's gripe is legitimate. David and Richard set up and shredded a > straw-man. I do not wish to engage in Herman vs others brush, but I want to humbly remind you that Herman is the one who loves to use agressive style, to treat his interlocutors as lesser beings, to challenge their logic, intellect and (the worst) integrity. And he is not usually prone to apologize. So even if sometimes he is "bashed" by someone, that can be hardly considered as unfair. Who sows the wind, will reap the whirlwind. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 18:15:22 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:15:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 References: Message-ID: <014401c956fd$0eccfec0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a > partnership to supply a "100% complete encyclopedia". Eh, interpretations. Your argument is easy to refute. The words are "make available" and "before commencing play". So I will make available my agreements - I'll answer every question about every agreement before play commences. And then... It is up to you to remember my answers. I "made available" my agreements, there is nothing written that they have to *be available* during the whole board. Word stretching? Bending the law to my idiosyncratic ideas? Sure. But you're doing exactly the same although in the other direction. Why is it so hard to read what is written and understand it as such? Before the board the opponents should have an access to all the agreements because they may want to prepare the methods to cope with them (and to avoid giving UI to each other during the auction by questioning). RAs simply regulate what is considered to be most frequent, most important, most surprising and require that to be put on CC or SC. That should help in most cases but of course everyone is free to ask for more. And everything he doesn't get this way will still be disclosed during the auction if it is relevant. Seriously, I'm trying hard but I can't understand what problems do you have with such reasoning. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 18:45:31 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 18:45:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] ascertaining degree of error References: <4939445D.6070207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <01b901c95701$44d58ec0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Hi all, > > Here is a live case from yesterday evening. > > Flight C teams, East is a seasoned player, West a promising tenderfoot, > N/S are male LOLs. E/W style fairly straightforward (i.e. 'if > undiscussed, it is to play'). > > West East > 1C pass 2Ha > pass pass 2NT p > 3D > > Axx xxx > AJx KQ10x > Qxxx A10 > 10xx KJ86 > > > 2H : alerted, asked and explained as 'weak'. > Before deciding whether to reopen, East asks more precision about > strength and is told 'about an 8-count'. I love such questions. They usually cause problems and here is a good example. > E/W call the TD (YT) and West claims that he had been misinformed, that > apparently South has a very weak hand (indeed) and that, because there > are only 40 HCP in a pack and 2H had been explained as not so weak after > all, he thought partner's 2NT couldn't be natural, so it had to be some > sort of takeout bid (minors ?) to which he answered 3D. Had he known > that his side could have as much as 24 HCP, he would have taken 2NT as > natural, and bid 3NT. 2NT natural? I admit that I have no idea what is a level of Belgian Flight C, but I have never met anyone who plays 2NT as natural in this position, even in Polish 4-th division. Seasoned player? Hmm. Regardless, even if 2NT would be natural, making this bid is close to IWoG (vulnerability would be appreciated). > East claims he would have no problem in winning 3NT : it is fairly > natural to take the presumed Heart lead in dummy, and start with C10 > (small to the 8 would have worked too). Asked about how they'd play, two > players of roughly the same level as East found this line fairly easily. > So, if we do agree with West's claim, we should score the board as 3NT = > (for a 7 IMP swing). Up to the tree. Stupid question induced stupid answer from total bunnies, that was followed by a stupid call and additionally the partnership didn't have any agreements and based their calls on "table feel". So their feel was wrong this time. > But the question, of course, is : did West make such an error (letting > himself be influenced into believing 2NT must have been artificial, > contrary to their style) that we need to reject his claim ? And is it > dependent on his experience level ? West? I (and probably every player in Poland) would take 2NT as takeout (minors) too. > Notice that's irrelevant, but none of the 5 tables established this > reasonable 3NT (1H overcall, anyone ?). Against semi-natural 1C 1H looks fine. > Thank you for the advice > > Alain Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 5 19:00:55 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:00:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] ascertaining degree of error In-Reply-To: <01b901c95701$44d58ec0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4939445D.6070207@ulb.ac.be> <01b901c95701$44d58ec0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49396C57.5020007@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > 2NT natural? I admit that I have no idea what is a level of Belgian Flight > C, but I have never met anyone who plays 2NT as natural in this position, > even in Polish 4-th division. Seasoned player? Hmm. Regardless, even if 2NT > would be natural, making this bid is close to IWoG (vulnerability would be > appreciated). > > None vul. Please notice that 3NT wins, so you can't say bidding 2NT is absurd. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 5 19:18:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:18:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00f201c956f7$00bf07c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be> <002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl> <002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl> <49327608.2080303@skynet.be> <000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49328F21.8020900@skynet.be> <001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl> <0FE750F9-B398-4CFE-8820-06B863C641A6@starpower.net> <003501c95401$81938900$15844c59@chello.pl> <005501c954a3$a60ad520$15844c59@chello.pl> <4935EADD.7030907@connecttime.net> <49368F27.5080603@connecttime.net> <00f201c956f7$00bf07c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:32:02 -0500, Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> And my 3S example leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I will retell it. I >> bid >> 2Di (alerted and incorrectly explained by partner as multi), my partner >> bids 3S, and I bid 3NT, ending the auction. I now reveal that my 2Di bid >> was misexplained. Opponents ask about the meaning of the 3S call, and I >> describe it as natural, showing a good spade suit. >> >> Opening leader avoids leading a spade from KQxxx, and dummy comes down >> with two small spades. Since I don't have a spade stopper either, they >> have made the wrong opening lead and I get a top. Opponents discover >> that >> I knew all along that partner intended his bid to be asking for a spade >> stopper (by partnership agreement on responses to a multi 2Di when it >> does >> occur). >> >> I feel bad getting a top through a bidding misunderstanding. But that >> happens all of the time and I can deal with it. I feel very bad about >> the >> intentional misleading explanation of partner's 3S call. (Maciej has >> argued that (expert) players will realize that the explanation of the 3S >> is invalid and they don't have any idea what the 3S bid meant, but that >> just makes it worse when this happens against inexpert players.) > > The auction goes 2D-3S-3NT, but not questioned. Now after the bidding > they > ask for an explanation and you tell them that all is natural. The opening > leader has KQxxx of spades but leads something else. You get a top. Do > you > change the score now and offer 3NT -1 to your opponents? They had no real > chance to get it right, they were totally fixed. It should seem unfair to > you, shouldn't it? > > But no, you won't offer them the correction. Instead you insist on > telling > them what 3S means in your example in spite of the fact that every sane > player on this planet would know that 3S was based on misconception and > it's > very probable that it means something different than "spades". And every > player (excluding real begginers) would lead a spade with closed eyes and > without looking at his own holding (unless he has something like AK in > the > other suit and can safely check what will be in dummy). > > I have nothing against fairness and feeling bad about getting undeserved > tops. But I don't like that kind of inconsistency. Want to make misbids > unlawful? Join Bobby Wolff in his crusade, the 2017(18) revision is > ahead. I > will remain in the opposition but will obey the laws. I can guarantee you > that *I* won't be at loss. The thousands (milions?) of bunnies will be, > being deprived of their only real chance to get a good score against > better > players. > >> Bob Frick > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 5 20:13:03 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 20:13:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] ascertaining degree of error References: <4939445D.6070207@ulb.ac.be><01b901c95701$44d58ec0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49396C57.5020007@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001101c9570d$7f52e460$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Bystry a ?crit : > 2NT natural? I admit that I have no idea what is a level of Belgian Flight > C, but I have never met anyone who plays 2NT as natural in this position, > even in Polish 4-th division. Seasoned player? Hmm. Regardless, even if 2NT > would be natural, making this bid is close to IWoG (vulnerability would be > appreciated). AG: None vul. Please notice that 3NT wins, so you can't say bidding 2NT is absurd. MB: It is. Absurd bids are sometimes lucky but that doesn't change their status. E has 4 hearts, his LHO has 6, so partner has 1,5 on average. E has 4 clubs, his RHO at least 4 (if 3 then partner is void in hearts), so partner has 2,5 on average. That leaves him with 9 cards in spades and diamonds and he didn't make takeout double, so he is probably too weak. 3NT is very improbable and 2NT is only profitable if it makes and 2H would make. But 2NT would go down most of the time, spades and diamond are on the right, hearts on the left, only clubs are well laid. You are probably deluded by the actual layout with insane 2H bid by a bunny and a magic partner's hand. And don't forget that he was told that his LHO has 8 HCP. So his side could have only 20 HCP max. Maybe he didn't believe that explanation but then why did he ask additional question? To have a grounds for succesful TD ruling? Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 5 23:01:05 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2008 17:01:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <00e401c956f2$d5063d00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl><004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl> <43011377-6083-45B2-A67F-6F4D69C1A69F@starpower.net> <00e401c956f2$d5063d00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Dec 5, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Bystry wrote: >> The ACBL has offered the following: When asked the meaning of a >> call, one should disclose not only one's agreement about that >> particular call, but also any other partnership agreements that may >> be relevant to understanding that call. >> >> I take this (admittedly without evidence from authority) to be the >> ACBL's interpretation of the references to "relevance" in L20F1 (that >> would, admittedly, be the 1997 version, but I don't think that >> matters). >> >> The alternative interpretation, offered by Maciej, would be: When >> asked the meaning of a call, one should disclose one's agreements >> about that call only if the call is relevant to the immediate >> auction. >> >> One argument for choosing the former interpretation over the latter >> rests on the fact that the ACBL (and the WBF) have, for decades now, >> regularly issued regulations and interpretations that have expanded, >> rather than reduced, the scope of the disclosure requirements, and it >> would seem odd for them to suddenly reverse course. > > a) as you perfectly know ACBL's ideas are of different levels of > reason > (like any other NBO's or ZO's ideas). You're claiming that they are > so keen > on full disclosure but simultaneously they do not require the pairs > playing > e.g. Precision to warn their opponents. Yes, I know, everybody can > look at > the CC, but I also know that many people do not look. In my opinion > it would > be much more helpful for an average player to force his opponents > to warn > him before the play commences about non-standard system than to > allow him to > ask about Blackwood in an auction 1S-pass-2S-pass-pass. I have > never seen > any case in which lack of disclosing irrelevant agreements during the > auction resulted in damage, but I saw some cases in which lack of > pre-alert > caused damage (even if this damage is not redressed according to > ACBL's > policy). There may be a significant cultural difference at work here. In my (entirely ACBL-based) experience, nearly everyone arriving at a table takes at least a quick once-over of their opponents' CC. The first thing on the card is "General Approach", and any "non-standard system" would be noticed without fail. Strong club players announce their 1C openings. Indeed, the ACBL, with their doctrine of "be as forthcoming and helpful as you can" and their commitment Mr. Kaplan's paradigm for regulating disclosure, seems to be more fully committed to a liberal view than just about any other RA. In my 45 years playing duplicate bridge, no one has ever asked about Blackwood in a 1S-P-2S-P-P-P auction, but nor has anyone ever given me reason to think that if they were asked, they would even consider refusing to answer. Under any circumstances, openness about one's methods is expected, and anyone balking at providing any kind of disclosure is, even if they might be legally entitled to do so, somewhat suspect. We don't allow irrelevant questions willy-nilly, but we do allow the questioner rather than the opponent being questioned to make the first-cut judgment as to what might be relevant. Maciej may have been on firm ground when he called me "a fanatic of full disclosure", but my views, I believe, do reflect both ACBL doctrine and practice. > b) you still seem to misunderstand my position. I do not want to > reduce the > scope of disclosure requirements. I simply want to have a law which > is a > kind of a guard against unnecessary and irritating questioning. And > even > 20F1 isn't enough against some pushy players who ask questions from > mere > curiosity. This habit often puts me off stride and serves no > purpose. I have > to accept requirements of 20F1 because some people are really > interested and > want to follow the auction - that's sometimes very important and > needed. So > to help them I'm also forced to answer tons of unnecessary > questions. But if > you want to force me to answer even more questions which this time > would > serve no purpose to *anybody*, don't be surprised that I strongly > oppose it. > The appropriate time to ask such questions is *before commencing > play* (as > it is written in L40A1(b)), then it won't disturb anybody's thought > process. As I've pointed out previously, we already have numerous laws that guard against pushy players, mere curiosity, putting one's opponents "off stride", asking "tons of unnecessary questions" or "forcing" anyone to "answer... questions which... serve no purpose". We have no need whatsoever to compromise full disclosure to prevent such things, and I can assure Maciej that if he were to attend any of the games where I direct, he would not be bothered by any of that, my alleged full-disclosure fanaticism notwithstanding. If "the appropriate time to ask such questions is *before commencing play*", then one must ask "such questions" before one has any idea which of those questions he might find relevant once play starts. ISTM that it is that view, not the contrary one, which could open the door to players of questionable ethics exercising their "rights" (at the appropriate time!) to "force[ Maciej] to answer tons of unnecessary questions", claiming that with no knowledge of the auction to come, there is no basis on which to categorize their questions as "unnecessary". As a TD, what do I say to the player making Maciej's life miserable by demanding a fully detailed explanation of all of his ace-asking responses before he picks up his cards when he tells me, "But if I should want the information during the auction, you're telling me I may not be able to get it unless I ask now."? It should be noted also that what is "written in L40A1(b)" is about "a duty to make available", which has nothing to do with "the... time to ask questions" -- indeed, L40A1(b) addresses itself exclusively to the "askee" (and, in its second sentence, the RA); it neither addresses nor constrains the "asker". Finally, ISTM that if an opponent, in mid-auction at his turn to call, asks me a question about my bidding agreements, my ongoing "thought process" will be far less disturbed by my just giving him the answer than by my stopping to decide whether the question is sufficiently "relevant" to warrant my doing so. >> Eric Landau > > Maciej Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Dec 6 00:27:13 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:27:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com><4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4939B8D1.1060301@talktalk.net> [Nigel] Herman's gripe is legitimate. David and Richard set up and shredded a straw-man. [Bystry] I do not wish to engage in Herman vs others brush, but I want to humbly remind you that Herman is the one who loves to use agressive style, to treat his interlocutors as lesser beings, to challenge their logic, intellect and (the worst) integrity. And he is not usually prone to apologize. So even if sometimes he is "bashed" by someone, that can be hardly considered as unfair. Who sows the wind, will reap the whirlwind. [Nige2] I agree that Herman was rude to you. Perhaps you would concede that you retaliated? Sometimes, a BLMLer sinks to personal abuse but it detracts from his plausibility; most BLMLers disapprove; anyway, 2 wrongs don't make a right. IMO, politeness is important but it's also important to draw attention to what seems to be a faulty argument: David and Richard write that Herman would view a hypothetical scenario in a certain way; thence they deduce that he would make a ludicrous ruling. Herman repudiates their version of his views and the resulting ruling. I don't agree with Herman's views but I fear that they did represent them. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 6 02:29:26 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 02:29:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl><004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl><43011377-6083-45B2-A67F-6F4D69C1A69F@starpower.net><00e401c956f2$d5063d00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001001c95742$143bef20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > There may be a significant cultural difference at work here. In my > (entirely ACBL-based) experience, nearly everyone arriving at a table > takes at least a quick once-over of their opponents' CC. Yes, there is a difference, although I wouldn't call it "cultural". Rather it is a matter of habit and NBO's policy. Here only a small number of players have real CCs, most popular are MiniCCs (with a place for most basic things), at the local tournaments any CC is a rarity and unfortunately at more serious tournaments some pairs do not have any CC too. If something is not mandatory the results are easy to foresee. The only motivant is the rule that without any CC every misbid is treated as misexplanation. What's more - even if CCs are on the table nearly nobody looks at them. Most people play commonly known WJ or Strefa and the pairs who have some untypical agreements usually pre-alert (and only then CCs are inspected). But I wasn't talking from my national perspective. I've read twice all the NABC casebooks and I saw some cases in which the players were surprised by their opponents methods during the auction or after the board. > As I've pointed out previously, we already have numerous laws that > guard against pushy players, mere curiosity, putting one's opponents > "off stride", asking "tons of unnecessary questions" or "forcing" > anyone to "answer... questions which... serve no purpose". Hmm. Which laws? Ok, in cases of real abuse one can reach for procedural penalties. But I'll bet that nobody has ever got such penalty for asking unnecessary questions. In my opinion we're generally in agreement what usually has to be disclosed. The only difference I see is a matter of trust. You want the askers to decide what is relevant for them and you're counting on their goodwill in avoiding abuse. I want the laws to restrict the askers solely to relevant and really necessary questions. I'm counting on the goodwill of the responders in disclosing all that is really needed. I feel safer this way. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 6 03:20:02 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:20:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com><4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net><013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939B8D1.1060301@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002101c95749$25a3f120$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nige2] > I agree that Herman was rude to you. Perhaps you would concede that you retaliated? Sometimes, a BLMLer sinks to personal abuse but it detracts from his plausibility; most BLMLers disapprove; anyway, 2 wrongs don't make a right. My opinion about Herman's style of dicussing should be perfectly known to you (and no, I don't think he is rude, he simply has an overgrown ego). I only wanted to point to you that Herman is the one who often unwillingly (my assumption) provokes sharp reactions. Now I'm out, after all this is BLML, not WDYTAHDWML. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Dec 6 03:31:18 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:31:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three In-Reply-To: <001001c95742$143bef20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl><004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl><43011377-6083-45B2-A67F-6F4D69C1A69F@starpower.net><00e401c956f2$d5063d00$15844c59@chello.pl> <001001c95742$143bef20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4939E3F6.8010605@talktalk.net> [Bystry] Yes, there is a difference, although I wouldn't call it "cultural". Rather it is a matter of habit and NBO's policy. Here only a small number of players have real CCs, most popular are MiniCCs (with a place for most basic things), at the local tournaments any CC is a rarity and unfortunately at more serious tournaments some pairs do not have any CC too. If something is not mandatory the results are easy to foresee. The only motivant is the rule that without any CC every misbid is treated as misexplanation. [Nigel] The EBU enacted a sensible regulation to encourage the use of system cards. Until a pair can provide opponents with identical completed SCs, the director lends them standard cards specifying a *simple system* which they must employ. John (MadDog) Probst suggests a lazy way of avoiding misunderstandings in a scratch partnership. The partnership SCs state "We play opponents' complete system". Now you can refresh your memory by consulting opponent's SC, whenever it is your turn to bid. There may be a slight problem if you come up against another pair who adopt the same ploy. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Dec 6 03:41:43 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 02:41:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] overinformation In-Reply-To: <002101c95749$25a3f120$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com><4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net><013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939B8D1.1060301@talktalk.net> <002101c95749$25a3f120$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4939E667.9060001@talktalk.net> [Maciej] My opinion about Herman's style of dicussing should be perfectly known to you (and no, I don't think he is rude, he simply has an overgrown ego). I only wanted to point to you that Herman is the one who often unwillingly (my assumption) provokes sharp reactions. Now I'm out, after all this is BLML, not WDYTAHDWML. [Nigel] Is WDYTAHDWML the acronym for W hat D o Y you T hink A bout H erman D e W ael M ailing L ist :) ? I see there was another typo in my previous post. I meant to write "I don't agree with Herman's views but I fear that David and Richard did *misrepresent* them." From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 6 18:21:41 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2008 12:21:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] simplicity of player-applied laws In-Reply-To: <4939E667.9060001@talktalk.net> References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com> <4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net> <013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939B8D1.1060301@talktalk.net> <002101c95749$25a3f120$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939E667.9060001@talktalk.net> Message-ID: PRELUDE: I am usually unsympathetic to Nigel's claim that laws should be simpler. I think the existing balance is good and usually want laws to be longer. START: However, I see a difference between director-applied laws and player-applied laws. PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE: It seems to be well established that if people are asked to remember something complicated, they will (1) not remember everything; (2) tend to leave out things that don't make sense or seem inconsistent; (3) add things they infer. EXAMPLE OF DIRECTOR-APPLIED: Opening lead out of turn. The director has to remember 5 alternatives (by my count). But the director can read the laws, or read from a book. So this complication is not a serious problem because it is director-applied. EXAMPLE OF PLAYER-APPLIED: When given UI, a player has to deal with it himself. No one calls the director to find out the rules. (Even if the director read the relevant laws to the player, the player would still understand and remember a simplification.) So players are likely to remember and use a simplification, such as "When given UI, I must act like I do not have this information." This is a pretty good simplification. It does not correspond to L16B, which requires a player to consider the UI. I would read L73C and L75 as requiring at least some attention to the UI. It doesn't fit L16C at all. So it isn't doesn't perfectly fit the laws. (There are other problems.) That's one reason to call it a simplification. But it's a relatively good simplification. AN IMPLICATION: When an organization instructs its players about a player-applied law, they are likely to reduce it to a simplication. They might as well control the simplification process. RELEVANCE TO MY CONSTANT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NEW L20F1: "You have to divulge all partnership agreements upon request" is pretty simple. Players can remember it and use it. Most people interpret the divulgence laws this way (even if they can't explain why). The new L20F1 isn't. Maybe someone can come up with a simpler version, but I have that "You have to divulge all partnership agreements upon request concerning bids that are made and bids that could have been made but not about bids that could not have been made, including the superficially same bid with a different meaning, such as 5D as a response to Blackwood when 4NT was not Blackwood." I worry that the take-home simplication is "I don't have to divulge everything the opponents want to know." Again, my conflicts at the table are always when I want the opponents to divulge information that they don't think is relevant to me. I am always right, the opponents just don't see the relevance. I always get the information and the director is never called, because everyone in the ACBL thinks you have to divulge all partnership agreements on request. The ACBL will not like promoting a new law which works against their efforts for full divulgence and will create disagreements at the table. Furthermore, I read the new L20F1 as disentitling players from information about partnership agreements concerning an insufficient bid. Either (1) the law is so complicated that I cannot understand it; (2) we are going to stop requiring players to divulge information that apparently everyone thought they were required to divulge; (3) we are going to ignore the new L20F1 (my favorite) or selectively ignore the new L20F1; or (4) an even more complicated L20F1 is needed. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 6 18:49:25 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 18:49:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be> <4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be> <000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com> <49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com><4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net><013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939B8D1.1060301@talktalk.net><002101c95749$25a3f120$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939E667.9060001@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001301c957ca$fb12e6a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > Is WDYTAHDWML the acronym for > W hat > D o > Y you > T hink > A bout > H erman > D e > W ael > M ailing > L ist > :) ? Yeah, something like that. By the way, if Herman were to become WBFLC in one person, such mailing list would certainly be strongly desired ;-) Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 6 19:12:24 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:12:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Two alternatives for the WBF? No, three References: <492BF30E.8020808@skynet.be><002101c95139$1b17cc60$15844c59@chello.pl><002101c9523d$b1275f40$15844c59@chello.pl><49327608.2080303@skynet.be><000b01c952e1$fe3d01a0$15844c59@chello.pl><49328F21.8020900@skynet.be><001701c952fa$96793fc0$15844c59@chello.pl><000d01c9530a$dd1e5220$15844c59@chello.pl><004101c95404$d6357600$15844c59@chello.pl><066F8925-9368-4430-8EEF-C79AC9A93458@starpower.net><005b01c954a4$b47e0fe0$15844c59@chello.pl><004901c954c0$131d2160$15844c59@chello.pl><43011377-6083-45B2-A67F-6F4D69C1A69F@starpower.net><00e401c956f2$d5063d00$15844c59@chello.pl> <001001c95742$143bef20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4939E3F6.8010605@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001901c957ce$30e58f00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > > The EBU enacted a sensible regulation to encourage the use of system cards. Until a pair can provide opponents with identical completed SCs, the director lends them standard cards specifying a *simple system* which they must employ. Yeah, forcing somebody to play unfamiliar system will surely result in less MI and misbids. Nigel, your naivety is sometimes shocking for me. What's more - what do you propose as a "simple system" for Poles playing WJ or Strefa? Better minor? Acol? It would result in total chaos at their table and nobody would be happy. The easiest and most reasonable solution is changing the policy to make CCs mandatory (at least at serious tournaments) and give PPs to those who don't comply. And I think that MiniCCs should be enough except at the Championship level (to protect pick-up partnerships). The rule of treating misbids and psyches as MI without any CC is also helpful (that's why I always fill MiniCC - to be safe making deviations). Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 6 19:54:42 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:54:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] simplicity of player-applied laws References: <4935B0CE.3080205@aol.com> <493647E8.2030605@skynet.be><4936665A.8060606@aol.com> <49367EE6.6060206@skynet.be><000201c9554e$c6e387a0$54aa96e0$@com><49369AE3.2060609@skynet.be> <4936E3CD.3040000@aol.com><4937914A.6090409@skynet.be> <4937CBF2.6070505@talktalk.net><013001c956fa$db929800$15844c59@chello.pl><4939B8D1.1060301@talktalk.net><002101c95749$25a3f120$15844c59@chello.pl><4939E667.9060001@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002801c957d4$19880e40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > PRELUDE: I am usually unsympathetic to Nigel's claim that laws should be > simpler. I think the existing balance is good and usually want laws to be > longer. > > START: However, I see a difference between director-applied laws and > player-applied laws. > > PSYCHOLOGICAL PRINCIPLE: It seems to be well established that if people > are asked to remember something complicated, they will (1) not remember > everything; (2) tend to leave out things that don't make sense or seem > inconsistent; (3) add things they infer. > > EXAMPLE OF DIRECTOR-APPLIED: Opening lead out of turn. The director has to > remember 5 alternatives (by my count). But the director can read the laws, > or read from a book. So this complication is not a serious problem because > it is director-applied. > > EXAMPLE OF PLAYER-APPLIED: When given UI, a player has to deal with it > himself. No one calls the director to find out the rules. (Even if the > director read the relevant laws to the player, the player would still > understand and remember a simplification.) > > So players are likely to remember and use a simplification, such as "When > given UI, I must act like I do not have this information." This is a > pretty good simplification. It does not correspond to L16B, which requires > a player to consider the UI. I would read L73C and L75 as requiring at > least some attention to the UI. It doesn't fit L16C at all. So it isn't > doesn't perfectly fit the laws. (There are other problems.) That's one > reason to call it a simplification. But it's a relatively good > simplification. > > AN IMPLICATION: When an organization instructs its players about a > player-applied law, they are likely to reduce it to a simplication. They > might as well control the simplification process. > > RELEVANCE TO MY CONSTANT COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NEW L20F1: "You have to > divulge all partnership agreements upon request" is pretty simple. Players > can remember it and use it. Most people interpret the divulgence laws this > way (even if they can't explain why). > > The new L20F1 isn't. Maybe someone can come up with a simpler version, but > I have that "You have to divulge all partnership agreements upon request > concerning bids that are made and bids that could have been made but not > about bids that could not > have been made, including the superficially same bid with a different > meaning, such as 5D as a response to Blackwood when 4NT was not Blackwood." > > I worry that the take-home simplication is "I don't have to divulge > everything the opponents want to know." Again, my conflicts at the table > are always when I want the opponents to divulge information that they > don't think is relevant to me. I am always right, the opponents just don't > see the relevance. I always get the information and the director is never > called, because everyone in the ACBL thinks you have to divulge all > partnership agreements on request. > > The ACBL will not like promoting a new law which works against their > efforts for full divulgence and will create disagreements at the table. > > Furthermore, I read the new L20F1 as disentitling players from information > about partnership agreements concerning an insufficient bid. Either (1) > the law is so complicated that I cannot understand it; (2) we are going to > stop requiring players to divulge information that apparently everyone > thought they were required to divulge; (3) we are going to ignore the new > L20F1 (my favorite) or selectively ignore the new L20F1; or (4) an even > more complicated L20F1 is needed. "Most people interpret", "my conflicts at the table are always", "I am always right", "I always get the information", "everyone in the ACBL thinks", "everyone thought they were required to divulge" - our politicians would be proud of you, presenting unproven assumptions as facts is their modus operandi. I'm willing to accept that in ACBL people are generally used to answer unnecessary questions and don't see anything bad with this approach (although I don't believe that *everyone* thinks that way). Let's assume that your words "I always get the information and the director is never called, because everyone in the ACBL thinks you have to divulge all partnership agreements on request" are compliant with reality (maybe changing "everyone" for "most players"). Following this assumption - what problems do you have with L20F1? Does it forbid extra disclosure? Does it force ACBL to change its policy? If all the ACBL members are so keen on disclosing everything anytime, the wording of L20F1 won't disturb them. But, as we may see, it is not enough for you to have your approach in action in your environment. You would want to impose ACBL's view on the rest of the world, knowing nothing about their ideas, habits, opinions and reality. Freedom is an admirable notion, but it can't be unlimited - in real life freedom of one man always collides with freedom of other people. The laws should give us a compromise between those freedoms. You want to ignore this longlasting and clever principle by allowing the questioners to do what they want, but forcing the responders to do something they don't like and what is completely meaningless. You're demanding that in spite of the fact that the questioners' freedom is already protected by the laws and TDs. Sad. Regards Maciej From john at asimere.com Sat Dec 6 20:26:41 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:26:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] ascertaining degree of error References: <4939445D.6070207@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: How much was 2H x going for? Sheesh! Can no-one double for penalties any more? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 3:10 PM Subject: [blml] ascertaining degree of error > Hi all, > > Here is a live case from yesterday evening. > > Flight C teams, East is a seasoned player, West a promising tenderfoot, > N/S are male LOLs. E/W style fairly straightforward (i.e. 'if > undiscussed, it is to play'). > > West East > 1C pass 2Ha > pass pass 2NT p > 3D > > Axx xxx > AJx KQ10x > Qxxx A10 > 10xx KJ86 > > > 2H : alerted, asked and explained as 'weak'. > Before deciding whether to reopen, East asks more precision about > strength and is told 'about an 8-count'. > > E/W call the TD (YT) and West claims that he had been misinformed, that > apparently South has a very weak hand (indeed) and that, because there > are only 40 HCP in a pack and 2H had been explained as not so weak after > all, he thought partner's 2NT couldn't be natural, so it had to be some > sort of takeout bid (minors ?) to which he answered 3D. Had he known > that his side could have as much as 24 HCP, he would have taken 2NT as > natural, and bid 3NT. > > East claims he would have no problem in winning 3NT : it is fairly > natural to take the presumed Heart lead in dummy, and start with C10 > (small to the 8 would have worked too). Asked about how they'd play, two > players of roughly the same level as East found this line fairly easily. > So, if we do agree with West's claim, we should score the board as 3NT = > (for a 7 IMP swing). > > But the question, of course, is : did West make such an error (letting > himself be influenced into believing 2NT must have been artificial, > contrary to their style) that we need to reject his claim ? And is it > dependent on his experience level ? > > Notice that's irrelevant, but none of the 5 tables established this > reasonable 3NT (1H overcall, anyone ?). > > Thank you for the advice > > Alain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 7 13:15:16 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 12:15:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com> Message-ID: <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Friday, December 05, 2008 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [RJH] > > "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." > > Eric Landau (neither incompetent nor dangerous): > > But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a partnership to > supply a "100% complete encyclopaedia" > > David Burn (incompetent but not dangerous): > > No, it does not, any more than "Passengers must take all their personal > belongings with them when leaving the train" means that you may not board > the train having left any of your personal possessions at home. > +=+ I tend to feel that there are things about the Law 40 disclosure requirements that blml subscribers might explore further. The Regulating Authority is put in charge of disclosure. It has a duty to make appropriate provisions through system regulation. It should say whether a System Card is required and , if so, what it should contain. It should say what items the SC should describe in some detail and what items may be listed but need not be explained except following enquiry when they arise. The RA should say what understandings should have opponents' attention drawn to them before commencing to play against them. It should clarify what partnership understandings should be alerted (or announced) and explained if opponents ask for explanation. There may be a further category I have not thought of. 2. So let us now go back to Law 40A1(b). This says: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them." Let us ask ourselves what this means. What is "to make available"? So I consult the dictionary and it tells me 'available = accessible, obtainable, to be had. Thus it would seem 'available' is not synonymous with 'supplied' or 'given up front to opponents'. It is possible to construe this as indicating that there are some understandings in the 'alertable' category, for example, which should be disclosed if opponents enquire about them before commencing play but which it is not required to disclose on the SC or by special notice to opponents. Enquiry can perhaps be in general terms - something like 'Have you any alertable understandings that the regulations do not require you to list on your System Card but which are unusual?' 3. Any item listed on the SC is also to be explained in answer to enquiry before commencing play. 4. There is one further point. Law 40B6(b) provides a back stop. It covers situations where disclosure has not given opponents adequate notice to prepare countermeasures needed and damage has resulted. This does not necessarily imply blame laid on a side. It may be that the regulations have been fully complied with, but unfortunately it turns out the opponents needed to know sooner than these required. Anyway, the law is open to interpretation. It is worthy of thought and I do not have any particular prerogative to say this is how it is. I make mention of a possibility that has not so far attracted WBFLC attention, to the best of my recollection. Guidelines may be needed; RAs can help in the interim. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Sun Dec 7 14:44:21 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 08:44:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com> <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <493BD335.6040406@meadows.pair.com> Grattan wrote: > <...> > Enquiry can perhaps be in general terms - something like 'Have > you any alertable understandings that the regulations do not require > you to list on your System Card but which are unusual?' But WHY? Why put the responsibility on a player to decide, in advance, what a (quite possibly unknown) opponent might consider to be "unusual"? I hear Maciej, and (it appears) the majority, who are concerned about being forced to answer irrelevant questions. I know the WBFLC is (apparently) on their side. I accept all this. However, there ARE protections against harassing opponents with irrelevant questions. If you think an opponent has overstepped the line, then call the TD, who can ask the opponent to justify the need for the question, and take appropriate action if there was none. I still cannot understand the view that, if your partner incorrectly thinks that they are playing some gadget or other, even if you are 100% sure of the fact that they're incorrect, the responses to that convention are not relevant information *as far as the opponents are concerned*. Maciej (not picking on you, Maciej, but it was your response to me) has said that he doesn't feel the opponents are entitled to yet another advantage when you're already having a bidding misunderstanding. Well, that can cut both ways. If you're already on a probably lousy score anyway, are a couple of MPs less (if it does happen) going to make that much of a difference? Just create a presumption that you answer the question, UNLESS you can make a case to the TD for harassment on the grounds of irrelevant questioning. If you like, formalize a response "I'm sorry, I don't think that question is relevant to the auction, but call the TD if you disagree". Then we get round any questions about what the RAs need to do to help the WBFLC around this, we don't really care too much about design of system cards and the like, and there's no mind-reading to be done in response to Grattan's suggested form of question at the start of the round. If concentration is an issue, with opponents disrupting you by asking questions, then call the TD. There are a hell of a lot of things that opponents have done to me over a long time in even *my* very definitely *non-expert* level of bridge that I never got any redress for, from a (now deceased) multiple British international who appeared to be incapable of keeping his mouth shut for more than 15 seconds at a time, to those players for whom "standard tempo" means that you're always trying to finish the last board or the round in about two minutes flat. Just answer the damn questions, folks, and if you don't want to give away extra information, don't screw your system up. Your Blackwood responses are NOT relevant if your partner correctly remembers that 4NT is for the minors. If your partner decides 4NT should suddenly become Blackwood, then IMHO, on any REASONABLE definition of the word, your Blackwood responses just became RELEVANT to opponents. Bottom line: Let opponents decide the relevance of their questions, on pain of having to justify it to the TD afterwards, and hit them with PPs for overstepping the mark. You'll very quickly get rid of the irrelevant question merchants, I promise you. Brian. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 7 16:25:06 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:25:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com> <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <493BEAD2.8060808@skynet.be> Grattan raises some important issues. In general, I agree with him: Grattan wrote: > >> > +=+ I tend to feel that there are things about the Law 40 disclosure > requirements that blml subscribers might explore further. > The Regulating Authority is put in charge of disclosure. It has a > duty to make appropriate provisions through system regulation. Maybe the word regulation is wrongly used here - this implies system restrictions, something this thread has no bearing upon. Maybe the words "system card regulation" would be better. I'm only saying this because the text is very good and may wone day reappear in official WBF documents, better to make certain of the wording, then. > It should say whether a System Card is required and , if so, > what it should contain. It should say what items the SC should > describe in some detail and what items may be listed but need not > be explained except following enquiry when they arise. Very important, and very correct. I would like to note that this is one of those issues that can only be properly done by the RA. The WBF SC regulations are totally inadequate when dealing with national tournaments, where different habits are common or uncommon. > The RA should say what understandings should have opponents' > attention drawn to them before commencing to play against them. Exactly. > It should clarify what partnership understandings should be > alerted (or announced) and explained if opponents ask for explanation. The alert procedure is similarly a national domain of authority. Remark that I am far less certain that regulations about screens, bidding boxes, calculation, etc, belong in the national domain. While I agree that some RAs might want to change international regulations to better suit national habits, there is the reverse of the coin that if the RA fails in its duty to write complete regulations, it hasz nothing to fall back on. A default WBF regulation in these matters should be very helpful. > There may be a further category I have not thought of. > 2. So let us now go back to Law 40A1(b). > This says: > "Each partnership has a duty to make available its > partnership understandings to opponents before > commencing play against them." > Let us ask ourselves what this means. What is "to > make available"? So I consult the dictionary and it tells me > 'available = accessible, obtainable, to be had. > Thus it would seem 'available' is not synonymous with 'supplied' > or 'given up front to opponents'. It is possible to construe this > as indicating that there are some understandings in the 'alertable' > category, for example, which should be disclosed if opponents > enquire about them before commencing play but which it is not > required to disclose on the SC or by special notice to opponents. Exactly right. Grattan should not be so surprised to hear that his committee has come up with the words "make available" which best describe what should be meant. > Enquiry can perhaps be in general terms - something like 'Have > you any alertable understandings that the regulations do not require > you to list on your System Card but which are unusual?' > 3. Any item listed on the SC is also to be explained in answer > to enquiry before commencing play. Which is still "making available". > 4. There is one further point. Law 40B6(b) provides a back > stop. It covers situations where disclosure has not given opponents > adequate notice to prepare countermeasures needed and damage > has resulted. This does not necessarily imply blame laid on a side. > It may be that the regulations have been fully complied with, but > unfortunately it turns out the opponents needed to know sooner > than these required. > This is one point which should be addressed by the RA, in general terms, by writing in its regulation "the partnership must also list on its SC any part of system which might require prior warning to opponents." The WBF has an area "special agreements that may require defence". I think such a stop gap should deal with all points listed by Grattan under number four. > Anyway, the law is open to interpretation. It is worthy of > thought and I do not have any particular prerogative to say this > is how it is. I make mention of a possibility that has not so far > attracted WBFLC attention, to the best of my recollection. > Guidelines may be needed; RAs can help in the interim. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan stops at the wrong point. Of far more interest to blml at this point is whether or not the elements listed in L40 should also be revealed upon later question. Let's say that while playing board 7, I remark something on my opponent's SC which I have questions about. Of course I should wait until board seven is finished. May I now ask the questions before starting board 8? I would imagine that since this is still "before play", I may ask these questions. And then let's say that during the auction or play (at the appropriate time) I have a question which I believe is relevant to the choice I am about to make. Of course subject to UI restrictions on my partner, am I allowed to ask this question? L20F1 seems to indicate that I am allowed to ask relevant questions, but is the list in L20F1 intended as a limiting list, or is it an explanatory list? L20F1 lists a number of things I am entitled to, and there are numerous other laws which limit my asking to things that would be deemed relevant (under harassing opponents). L40 tells me that I am allowed to ask everything, L20 tells me a list of things I am specifically allowed to ask about. Was it really the WBF intention to limit in L20 that which was unlimited in L40? I fail to see the need for such a limit (other than the limit on harassing opponents). Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 7 17:17:02 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 17:17:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493BD335.6040406@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <000901c95887$3d7cfb40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > But WHY? Why put the responsibility on a player to decide, in > advance, what a (quite possibly unknown) opponent might consider to be > "unusual"? What do you propose instead? All the things cannot be put on a SC. And get real, nobody would want to waste his time and read 20 pages of agreements. Basic system (SA, Precision, Acol, PC etc), openings, leads, discards, general style, unusal doubles/redoubles - that covers 99,999% of things you want to prepare for before the play commences. > However, there ARE protections against harassing opponents with > irrelevant questions. If you think an opponent has overstepped the > line, then call the TD, who can ask the opponent to justify the need > for the question, and take appropriate action if there was none. What protections? I hear it from Eric and you, but it doesn't have any grounds in laws, except of course L20F1 which you want to fight so hard. Everybody has a right to ask a question provided that he doesn't ask solely for partner's benefit. > I still cannot understand the view that, if your partner incorrectly > thinks that they are playing some gadget or other, even if you are > 100% sure of the fact that they're incorrect, the responses to that > convention are not relevant information *as far as the opponents are > concerned*. Misexplanation is not a part of the auction. It is not relevant, it's something superfluous. All the damage caused by it will be redressed and the knowledge of the opponents' misunderstanding is something extra for the NOS. > Maciej (not picking on you, Maciej, but it was your response to me) > has said that he doesn't feel the opponents are entitled to yet > another advantage when you're already having a bidding > misunderstanding. Well, that can cut both ways. If you're already on a > probably lousy score anyway, are a couple of MPs less (if it does > happen) going to make that much of a difference? I'm not concerned with the OS score. I'm concerned with the NOS getting something for nothing, worried that they can stop to play bridge and get a top anyway. They are already hugely advantaged over those who suffer from simple undisclosed misbid/psyche. Why are you so keen on giving them more? It's something I cannot understand, although I'm trying really hard. And to reach that you want to break the fundamental rule that the misbidder must not be forced to reveal the contents of his hand. Even Herman starts to understand that. > Just create a presumption that you answer the question, UNLESS you can > make a case to the TD for harassment on the grounds of irrelevant > questioning. That's what L20F1 says. You should answer all the relevant questions. If the TD after the board judges that you refused to disclose anything important he'll rule MI and adjust the score. > If concentration is an issue, with opponents disrupting you by asking > questions, then call the TD. And what can the TD do? Without L20F1 he has no law to do anything. It would have to reach a real abuse level to allow the TD to use some ex-proprieties to punish the harassers. > Just answer the damn questions, folks, and if you don't want to give > away extra information, don't screw your system up. Your Blackwood > responses are NOT relevant if your partner correctly remembers that > 4NT is for the minors. If your partner decides 4NT should suddenly > become Blackwood, then IMHO, on any REASONABLE definition of the word, > your Blackwood responses just became RELEVANT to opponents. Sorry, but I beg to differ on the point of reasonability. And "relevant" is used in bearing with auction, not with the opponents. Some opponents would want to know what do I have in my hand. For them it would be "relevant". That doesn't mean that the laws should support them. > Bottom line: Let opponents decide the relevance of their questions, on > pain of having to justify it to the TD afterwards, and hit them with > PPs for overstepping the mark. You'll very quickly get rid of the > irrelevant question merchants, I promise you. Sorry, but I prefer prevention to penalisation. What indemnity for me would be a PP for the harassers? No, in my opinion much more reasonable solution is putting the responsibility on both sides - the explainers shouldn't hide anything important but the questioners shouldn't ask irrelevant questions. That way the explainers are protected from harassment and the questioners are protected from MI by the TD rulings. I'm tired of having to repeat my arguments and I won't do it again. Please, allow the others to play bridge in a way they like it. Nobody forbids you to explain all that you want. I would be first to fight for your cause in such situation. But I can't accept that nowadays people became so litigious that they forget their own responsibility for solving bridge problems and they want their opponents to do everything - disclose system, disclose their experience, disclose irrelevant nuances, disclose contents of the hands and maybe even play for them (not forgetting about the TD for the rescue). > Brian. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Dec 7 17:59:14 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 16:59:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com> <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] Anyway, the law [40] is open to interpretation. It is worthy of thought and I do not have any particular prerogative to say this is how it is. I make mention of a possibility that has not so far attracted WBFLC attention, to the best of my recollection. Guidelines may be needed; RAs can help in the interim. [Nigel] I hope the 2018 law book will include a complete set of *default* laws on disclosure that local legislators can over-ride; if necessary: I doubt that it would often be necessary. Take Grattan's convention card example. I think the WBFLC should define a general layout, with standard sections, in a specified order. There could be slight variants, maybe optional sections, for use at different levels. The sections could be of different size to cater for local idiosyncrasies. But the overall format, notation, look, and feel, would be the same everywhere. I think the card should try to use a common notation. It should try to avoid unnecessary cultural or linguistic bias but some is inevitable, in the interests of conformity and utility. Again, a local legislator would be free to substitute its own format if it desperately wanted to handicap foreigners. I like the EBU format as a basis. It starts with a system name and "Aspects that opponents should note" but I'm sure we could all get used to any sensible international format, or in extremis, even the WBF card :) In the past, BLMLers have tried to defend "a *local* card for *local* people". But locals are already familiar with most *local* methods. It is strangers who are kept needlessly in the dark. Both could easily find their way round a standard card. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 7 19:33:29 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 19:33:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > In the past, BLMLers have tried to defend "a *local* card for *local* people". But locals are already familiar with most *local* methods. It is strangers who are kept needlessly in the dark. Both could easily find their way round a standard card. Yeah, perfect idea. For the convenience of one or two foreign players all the natives would have to change their habits and fill the SC not matching their systems. Strange that you said nothing about "Standard System". For enforcing them to waste their time coping with "Standard SC" our players would be merciful and content themselves with ousting you back to the GB by kicking your a**. But for enforcing them to learn "Standard System" they would burn you at the stake. :-) Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Dec 7 20:19:35 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:19:35 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net> <000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net> [Nigel] In the past, BLMLers have tried to defend "a *local* card for *local* people". But locals are already familiar with most *local* methods. It is strangers who are kept needlessly in the dark. Both could easily find their way round a standard card. [Maciej] Yeah, perfect idea. For the convenience of one or two foreign players all the natives would have to change their habits and fill the SC not matching their systems. Strange that you said nothing about "Standard System". For enforcing them to waste their time coping with "Standard SC" our players would be merciful and content themselves with ousting you back to the GB by kicking your a**. But for enforcing them to learn "Standard System" they would burn you at the stake. :-) [Nigel] I've been warned :{ But Maciej has made another straw-man to fight. He cunningly snipped the first sentence of my post: :) "I hope the 2018 law book will include a complete set of *default* laws on disclosure that local legislators can over-ride; if necessary: I doubt that it would often be necessary." :) I agree, however, that the laws should define a *standard system* (a playable system that players could use if they wanted). The *default* law should be that you disclose *departures* from that standard system. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Dec 7 20:39:22 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:39:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net> Message-ID: [NG] > I like the EBU format as a basis. [DALB] A couple of hours ago, we played a set of boards against two Italian gentlemen at a tournament in Milan. They were somewhat perturbed to discover that we opened 2D with five or more hearts, and 2H with five or more spades. When we told them that they were looking at our responses to a 1NT opening, they opined that this was a pretty stupid thing to put in the most prominent part of the front page of our (EBU) convention card. David Burn London, England From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Dec 7 20:58:19 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 19:58:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <493C2ADB.8080203@talktalk.net> [DALB] A couple of hours ago, we played a set of boards against two Italian gentlemen at a tournament in Milan. They were somewhat perturbed to discover that we opened 2D with five or more hearts, and 2H with five or more spades. When we told them that they were looking at our responses to a 1NT opening, they opined that this was a pretty stupid thing to put in the most prominent part of the front page of our (EBU) convention card. [Nigel] A standard layout (any standard layout) would reduce the frequency of such misunderstandings. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 7 20:59:41 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:59:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > In the past, BLMLers have tried to defend "a *local* card for *local* > people". But locals are already familiar with most *local* methods. It > is strangers who are kept needlessly in the dark. Both could easily find > their way round a standard card. > > [Maciej] > Yeah, perfect idea. For the convenience of one or two foreign players all the natives would have to change their habits and fill the SC not matching their systems. Strange that you said nothing about "Standard System". For enforcing them to waste their time coping with "Standard SC" our players would be merciful and content themselves with ousting you back to the GB by > kicking your a**. But for enforcing them to learn "Standard System" they would burn you at the stake. :-) > > [Nigel] > I've been warned :{ But Maciej has made another straw-man to fight. He cunningly snipped the first sentence of my post: > :) > "I hope the 2018 law book will include a complete set of *default* laws on disclosure that local legislators can over-ride; if necessary: I doubt that it would often be necessary." > :) I snipped everything I didn't want to respond to. In fact it was summarized with your last passage. But if you wish I can comment on this too - nearly every country has its own standard systems, CC patterns, alert regulations. Trying to make it uniform would make hundreds of thousands players unhappy. So it would be nearly always necessary for local legislators to override the *default* set. Actually I don't understand your rantings. There are international competitions, played under EBL or WBF rules - there everybody, regardless of his nationality, has to use uniform CCs and alerts. And there are local competitions, played under local rules because locals are in an overwhelming majority. To force them to learn "Standard Systems" or use "Standard CCs" because once a year a foreigner may appear is absurd to the n-th degree. Besides, we have in Poland some big congresses in which the foreigners take part. In such cases it is normal for Polish players to alert everything playing against such pairs, even 1C opening. We don't need any writ, mere politeness is enough. You would want to force *everybody* to alert 1C in such tournaments, even Poles playing against Poles. It would cause loads of alerts, serving no purpose. Sorry Nigel, if you want to play abroad you have to comply with the local rules, as I would do playing in the GB. > I agree, however, that the laws should define a *standard system* (a playable system that players could use if they wanted). The *default* law should be that you disclose *departures* from that standard system. Moonshine. In Poland nearly all bids would be alerted. So the real purpose of alerting (warning against something untypical or unexpected) would diminish. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Dec 7 21:31:04 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:31:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net> <001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net> [Nigel] I agree, however, that the laws should define a *standard system* (a playable system that players could use if they wanted). The *default* law should be that you disclose *departures* from that standard system. [Maciej] Moonshine. In Poland nearly all bids would be alerted. So the real purpose of alerting (warning against something untypical or unexpected) would diminish. [Nige2] I advocate the disclosure of departures from a standard-system because that would get rid of fain-forest's worth of incomprehensible disclosure regulations. I would prefer a *global standard*. but local regulators would be free to substitute a *local standard* (for example, a hybrid club system, in Poland) while still keeping the same disclosure law. To maintain a greater advantage for local players over foreigners, a national regulator could even keep its current local disclosure regulations. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 7 23:02:09 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 23:02:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nige2] > I advocate the disclosure of departures from a standard-system because that would get rid of fain-forest's worth of incomprehensible disclosure regulations. I would prefer a *global standard*. but local regulators would be free to substitute a *local standard* (for example, a hybrid club system, in Poland) while still keeping the same disclosure law. The *law* is the same for everybody. L40, L20. They state what has to be disclosed. Only the *means* of disclosure are regulated by RAs. And that is very reasonable. I'll give you an example - most popular system in Poland (WJ) has an integral convention named "Odwrotka" - in a sequence 1C-1H/S-2D promises 18+PC and 3+ H/S and asks for responder's strength and heart length. The responses to "Odwrotka" are played in different fashions but the most popular are 4-5-4-5 or 4-4-5-5. So our Minicards have a pre-printed options - 4-4-5-5, 4-5-4-5, other, none. The same goes for many things - systems are - WJ, Strefa, other, 2D opening - Wilkosz, Multi, other, 1NT overcall - classic, 5-4, 1D opening - 4+, 5+, other. You catch an idea? It makes it easy for the players to quickly fill in the MC before the play. They don't have to spend 30 minutes writing elaborates about what is "Odwrotka", what is "WJ" etc. I'm sure the same goes for other countries - most popular options are pre-printed and have to be check-boxed, only untypical things have to be described in detail. Now, if we introduce your idiosyncratic idea, the "Standard CCs" would have to be 15 pages long or they would have to be suited only for one, chosen system (presumably your "Standard System"). And it doesn't matter which system you'll choose, the players from countries in which this system is generally unknown will be justly mad about having everytime to write ten times more than now, although nobody will need that since everybody already knows the meanings. Tell me, Nigel, did anybody hurt you? You visited foreign country and they denied you full disclosure of their standards? If not, then stop yarning and realize that most of the players are forthright and polite and will alert/disclose/explain all that is needed. Those who want to hide something will always do that, with "Standard System" or without. > To maintain a greater advantage for local players over foreigners, a national regulator could even keep its current local disclosure regulations. And RAs are doing just that. And they have some kind of a "default standard" - WBF CoC. If they don't want to produce their own rules, they can adapt it. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 01:34:09 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:34:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net> <000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> [Maciej] I'm sure the same goes for other countries - most popular options are pre-printed and have to be check-boxed, only untypical things have to be described in detail. Now, if we introduce your idiosyncratic idea, the "Standard CCs" would have to be 15 pages long or they would have to be suited only for one, chosen system (presumably your "Standard System"). And it doesn't matter which system you'll choose, the players from countries in which this system is generally unknown will be justly mad about having everytime to write ten times more than now, although nobody will need that since everybody already knows the meanings. [Nigel] In UK, we do much the same. Not many check-boxes. But most tournament players prepare their cards on PCs. For popular systems, you can download a pre-completed standard system-card. Sometimes this requires a few trivial edits to adjust to personal preferences. Currently, we use EBU-format cards, but we could easily re-arrange the information to fit a global standard format, even the current WBF card. When we all start using a global standard layout, a standard template will become available for each popular system, played anywhere; and software will soon be developed to simplify editing, if needed. From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 8 01:41:11 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 00:41:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <114750.1792.qm@web87103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Nigel wrote: > > I agree, however, that the laws should define a > *standard system* (a > playable system that players could use if they wanted). The > *default* law > should be that you disclose *departures* from that standard > system. I have never understood Nigel's thing about a "default system". Beginning bridge players have enough trouble learning their own system without having to learn another that they don't play, just in case a foreign visitor wanders into the novice duplicate at the local club. I am not a beginning bridge player, but I would still prefer to spend the time and effort working on my own system. When I play in another country, I investigate their system of alerts (even if much of the investigation consists of asking my opponents on the first round). Now I am not an expert in this area, having played bridge in only 8 countries, but still, that is a few, and I have never had any problems. I would certainly not expect the locals to change the practices that make sense to them in order to accommodate my attendance. Another thing worth considering is, if there were to be a default system, which NBO has enough power to make its most common agreements into the default? I may be going out on a limb here, but I have a feeling we would all be studying Standard American, if not 2/1 Game Forcing. I wonder if any countries would resent having to learn (and as would be necessary, teach all their beginners) an American system of bidding. A lot of countries are not happy with the power the ACBL wields as it is. Furthermore, a "default system" would quickly become a system that no one plays, a la the EBU's "simple systems". (As a side note, the London Metropolitan Bridge Association runs a simple systems event, and a couple of years ago I redesigned the standard card to add check boxes for strong/weak 1NT, transfers or not, 4/5 card majors, and strong/weak twos. The lesson to be learnt from this is that there is not, even in a smallish country like England, a "default" system that beginners can be expected to know and be able to play.) A lot of the innovation in bridge is the result of experimentation in countries with diverse bridge cultures, for instance Australia, Poland and the Scandinavian countries. We should be pleased that there is such diversity, rather than trying to homogenise the world of bridge. Stefanie Rohan London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 02:08:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:08:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4939210A.2080903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: General Omar Bradley, 10th November 1948: "The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts." Richard Hills asserted: >>>Alain cannot be at "fault". Alain Gottcheiner quibbled: >>AG : you're the one who doesn't reason correctly. >>The word "fault" is from common life, not from bridge laws, so it >>should be given a common life definition, not a bridge definition. Richard Hills asserted: >>>The ethics of a game are defined by the rules of that game, so >>>it is a contradiction in terms to assert that Duplicate Bridge >>>is unethical. Alain Gottcheiner quibbled: >>AG : any laws that encourage lawyering are unethical in my >>philosophy, and some bridge laws do. Law 10A - Right to Determine Rectification: "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." In a private email, another blmler wrote: >We were once in a tournament with real prizes (airline fairs, >room and board) and my partner told the opponent to pick up his >revoke, he didn't want to win that way! Richard Hills: Edgar Kaplan wrote an Editorial on a true story where exactly that happened. The pair who illegally waived the revoke did not win. Rather, the unrectified revokers won. The pair who came second (instead of first, had the revoke been rectified) were justly furious, since all of their revokes had been duly punished. Kaplan's point, of course, was that a fair competition requires all players trying to win, not some illegally trying to lose. A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised Kaplan's position by postulating this hypothetical: "You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match choking on his food. If he dies, you win the match by default." In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted that while the Bridge Laws were silent on whether to let an opponent choke to death, he still deprecated such an action. Earl Dudley, 15th December 2003: "I think the proper action when someone is choking to death at the bridge table is to call the Director. It probably rates as an irregularity." Law 73D1: "...players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner..." Richard Hills: Yes, if the player is failing to steadily and unvaryingly choke, but is instead choking unsteadily and in a variable manner, the Director should be called. David Stevenson, 13th May 2004: "At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether killing a TD should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a warning on the first occasion." Adam Wildavsky, 7th December 2003: "Pascal wrote 'Je n'ai fait cette lettre-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.' A literal translation into English is, 'I made this longer letter only because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter.'" Richard Hills: So the executive summary of this unleisured longer posting, for those who save time by skipping to the final paragraphs, is that I agree with Alain Gottcheiner that "The way to win" is not winning at all costs. Nor should a Law of Bridge be interpreted to the point of ridiculousness for a non-bridge event like a player choking. But I strongly disagree with Alain Gottcheiner on the key issue. For events such as the disclosure of bridge information or the rectification of bridge revokes one should honour the bridge rules. In my opinion it is improper for a player to participate in a rule- bound competition (chess, bridge or Duplicate Scrabble), then to cherry-pick which rules one chooses to obey, for example electing to try to obey the Laws _except_ for intentionally infracting Law 10A. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 03:16:55 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 03:16:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > But most tournament players prepare their cards on PCs. I have no idea of the structure of British tournaments. But in Poland many partnerships are pick-up. Nearly all in local tournaments (it frequently starts with a phone - "wanna play tomorrow? yeah"), most of in local congresses, at least distinctive minority (closer to half) in national tournaments (e.g. I played in Krakow [550km distance] in the Grand Prix cycle with the partner from Silesia for the first time). And during our big summer congresses it is very popular to play different tournaments with different partners (unless you are top expert and fighting for the main price). In all this cases it is totally impractical to prepare the CC earlier. So the players usually have 5-15 minutes before the play commences and that is enough to fill a MiniCC, but not to describe a whole system. And many players are not so rich to stay in the hotels or possess a laptop with internet collection to be able to prepare and print the CC just before the tournament. > For popular systems, you can download a pre-completed standard system-card. Sometimes this requires a few trivial edits to adjust to personal preferences. That is more reasonable but I'm afraid that ballpen-made corrections on the printed card would make the entirety unreadable. And it still doesn't solve the problems of pick-up partnerships. > Currently, we use EBU-format cards, but we could easily re-arrange the information to fit a global standard format, even the current WBF card. When we all start using a global standard layout, a standard template will become available for each popular system, played anywhere; and software will soon be developed to simplify editing, if needed. What is a purpose for that? All right, we may force the pairs playing in the national championships to use such cards. There mostly steady partnerships take part, so they prepare their systems earlier. But what with the rest? And I'm still waiting for any example from your life when you were hurted by a deficient CC or lack of disclosure when playing abroad. Without that I have no reason to treat your nagging seriously. And surely WBF won't have any reason too. I assume they have enough troubles with reaching a compromise between different demands from different Zones in the cases of important, fundamental things to engage in another one which ain't broken, works well and seems to be only an idee fixe of one man. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 03:22:20 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 02:22:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <114750.1792.qm@web87103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <114750.1792.qm@web87103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <493C84DC.1080304@talktalk.net> Stefanie Rohan I have never understood Nigel's thing about a "default system". Beginning bridge players have enough trouble learning their own system without having to learn another that they don't play, just in case a foreign visitor wanders into the novice duplicate at the local club. I am not a beginning bridge player, but I would still prefer to spend the time and effort working on my own system. When I play in another country, I investigate their system of alerts (even if much of the investigation consists of asking my opponents on the first round). Now I am not an expert in this area, having played bridge in only 8 countries, but still, that is a few, and I have never had any problems. I would certainly not expect the locals to change the practices that make sense to them in order to accommodate my attendance. Another thing worth considering is, if there were to be a default system, which NBO has enough power to make its most common agreements into the default? I may be going out on a limb here, but I have a feeling we would all be studying Standard American, if not 2/1 Game Forcing. I wonder if any countries would resent having to learn (and as would be necessary, teach all their beginners) an American system of bidding. A lot of countries are not happy with the power the ACBL wields as it is. Furthermore, a "default system" would quickly become a system that no one plays, a la the EBU's "simple systems". (As a side note, the London Metropolitan Bridge Association runs a simple systems event, and a couple of years ago I redesigned the standard card to add check boxes for strong/weak 1NT, transfers or not, 4/5 card majors, and strong/weak twos. The lesson to be learnt from this is that there is not, even in a smallish country like England, a "default" system that beginners can be expected to know and be able to play.) A lot of the innovation in bridge is the result of experimentation in countries with diverse bridge cultures, for instance Australia, Poland and the Scandinavian countries. We should be pleased that there is such diversity, rather than trying to homogenise the world of bridge. [Nigel] As a teacher, I would like to teach a standard system that students could play anywhere, even if later they went on to other systems. Current local disclosure regulations specify that you alert departures from an *implicit* set of agreements that all players must learn. All that I'm suggesting is that this notional system becomes an ordinary playable system. Beginners can learn it. Scratch partner can use as a basis for play. Individual competitions can be based on it without discussion. You can scrap local most disclosure regulations and replace them with the simple rule: "disclose departures from the standard". I like the idea of a *global standard* because, wherever you are, you can alert in the same way and opponents always receive adequate information. I agree that the most likely standard would be based on 5-card majors, 3 weak twos, Strong notrump,Transfers, etc. Even in the UK, beginners ask to be taught such methods because then they can easily start to play on-line. Many countries would resent such American colonialism. But local regulators could substitute their own *local standard*. Although then a stranger would have to learn it to alert properly. Again the main difference is that the stranger would add a new playable system to his repertoire rather than clog up his brain with another daft mess of local regulations. I look forward to more diversity not less. I would prefer 2-tier system-regulation - - Standard system. All play identical methods and - Anything goes HUMs and BSCs welcome. I would play in the latter tier. But the Standard System is ideal for mass-media international events that ordinary journalists and commentators would have some chance of following. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 8 03:48:56 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:48:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:08:14 -0500, wrote: > General Omar Bradley, 10th November 1948: > > "The way to win an atomic war is to make certain it never starts." > > Richard Hills asserted: > >>>> Alain cannot be at "fault". > > Alain Gottcheiner quibbled: > >>> AG : you're the one who doesn't reason correctly. >>> The word "fault" is from common life, not from bridge laws, so it >>> should be given a common life definition, not a bridge definition. > > Richard Hills asserted: > >>>> The ethics of a game are defined by the rules of that game, so >>>> it is a contradiction in terms to assert that Duplicate Bridge >>>> is unethical. > > Alain Gottcheiner quibbled: > >>> AG : any laws that encourage lawyering are unethical in my >>> philosophy, and some bridge laws do. > > Law 10A - Right to Determine Rectification: > > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications when > applicable. Players do not have the right to determine (or waive - > see Law 81C5) rectifications on their own initiative." > > In a private email, another blmler wrote: > >> We were once in a tournament with real prizes (airline fairs, >> room and board) and my partner told the opponent to pick up his >> revoke, he didn't want to win that way! > > Richard Hills: > > Edgar Kaplan wrote an Editorial on a true story where exactly that > happened. The pair who illegally waived the revoke did not win. > Rather, the unrectified revokers won. The pair who came second > (instead of first, had the revoke been rectified) were justly > furious, since all of their revokes had been duly punished. > > Kaplan's point, of course, was that a fair competition requires all > players trying to win, not some illegally trying to lose. > > A subsequent letter to Bridge World satirised Kaplan's position by > postulating this hypothetical: > > "You notice an opponent in a team-of-four match choking on his > food. If he dies, you win the match by default." > > In his reply to the above scenario, Kaplan noted that while the > Bridge Laws were silent on whether to let an opponent choke to > death, he still deprecated such an action. > > Earl Dudley, 15th December 2003: > > "I think the proper action when someone is choking to death at the > bridge table is to call the Director. It probably rates as an > irregularity." > > Law 73D1: > > "...players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner..." > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, if the player is failing to steadily and unvaryingly choke, > but is instead choking unsteadily and in a variable manner, the > Director should be called. > > David Stevenson, 13th May 2004: > > "At the Spring 4s the TDs could not decide whether killing a TD > should incur a 3 imp fine, or merely a warning on the first > occasion." > > Adam Wildavsky, 7th December 2003: > > "Pascal wrote 'Je n'ai fait cette lettre-ci plus longue que parce > que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.' A literal > translation into English is, 'I made this longer letter only > because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter.'" > > Richard Hills: > > So the executive summary of this unleisured longer posting, for > those who save time by skipping to the final paragraphs, is that I > agree with Alain Gottcheiner that "The way to win" is not winning at > all costs. Nor should a Law of Bridge be interpreted to the point > of ridiculousness for a non-bridge event like a player choking. > > But I strongly disagree with Alain Gottcheiner on the key issue. > For events such as the disclosure of bridge information or the > rectification of bridge revokes one should honour the bridge rules. > > In my opinion it is improper for a player to participate in a rule- > bound competition (chess, bridge or Duplicate Scrabble), then to > cherry-pick which rules one chooses to obey, for example electing to > try to obey the Laws _except_ for intentionally infracting Law 10A. Hi Richard. I can identify three situations. 1. Player waiving rectification (or voluntary offering other advantages) for sake of gain outside of the competition. E.g., my opp offers me $5 to ignore the revoke. Reprehensible. 2. Players waiving rectification to avoid conflict or to make the opponent, who are arguing, seem petty. Not appropriate, though most players would not see the problem. L10A is a big help here. 3. Being generous. Usually, in my experience, this is to avoid over-rectification. I cannot recall ever waiving my right to equity. There have been many letters to the editor in the ACBL Bulletin on this, pro and con. When I play, my chief object is enjoyment, and I think of the four players at the table joined together working towards that goal. If I can make a director call that will make all four players unhappy -- what is the point? For example, a couple weeks ago declarer led the jack from hand towards AQ, my partner covered with the King, and declarer called for "small-ace". He was in a slam that other pairs were unlikely to bid and had already lost a trick. (The ACBL is crystal clear that the ruling should be that the ace was not played, although we don't know what the director would have ruled.) If I call the director, I am not striving to restore equity. Declarer just didn't see the king or called for the wrong card. I am not especially happy about calling the director. Declarer will, quite fairly, think I am being petty and unfriendly. My partner doesn't like to win that way. So why should I call the director just to make everyone unhappy? (Except of course to conform to L10A.) Another point. I cannot see any reason to make a distinction between waiving rectification, showing the opps my hand, or volunteering information I don't have to volunteer. So the WBF is inconsistent on this. Another point. Your example is not convincing. Yes, I was potentially influening the scores of other opponents. I am allowed to influence their scores. I do that every time I bid or play. To me, the worst is shooting, which is legal. Second is giving up when you aren't doing well, which is legal. Then there is hand-hogging and trying to make things exciting with some crazy bid. Actually, if I am consistent in my waiving of rectifications, there is no problem. (Or, it is not fair that some pairs don't have to play against us, so this is marginally more fair by reducing our overall effectiveness.) I don't know where that leaves me. 10A has a lot of uses, including one I did not mention -- protecting the players who don't want to waive rectification. It would be very nice if the different situations were distinguished. (Sorry Nigel!) But you can't be urging people to be unfriendly and petty -- that isn't going to work well at the club level. Bob, who apologizes for the length of this From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 04:08:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 14:08:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010801c956f7$f4ad9fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Yes, it seems that Calcutta tournaments would be illegal in the UK, >>not just because the bridge players are unclothed, but also because >>those players who have bet on their current opponents would have an >>inherent conflict of interest. Maciej Bystry: >In my opinion side bets are actually very beneficial for bridge. >Yes, some cheats may slip through, but there are many pairs who have >a bad tournament and they know it after e.g. 2 sessions of 5 - most >of them stop playing real bridge and they have a great unnecessary >impact on final results (excluding Swiss pairs), unless of course >they made a side bet with their friends, especially when the >difference in final placements counts. Richard Hills: Yes, if with a few rounds to go in a round-robin tournament (so the scores are important to the opponents) two pairs are certain to be sharing last and second-last places it is important for the integrity of the tournament to keep those pairs motivated to continue playing winning bridge. Therefore a private side-bet between the two pairs on avoiding the wooden spoon is advantageous. But disadvantageous would be the reverse private side-bet between the two pairs on _achieving_ the wooden spoon, since then both would play misere (a problem which occurred in international Cricket a few years ago, when bookies bribed the then captains of South Africa, Pakistan and India to play misere). Plus Edgar Kaplan was opposed to ludicrous conditions of contest which encouraged pairs or teams to play misere. For example -> 19th May 2004 posting: Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a grand final. So far, so good. But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi- finals. The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be eliminated, and the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to knockout semi-finals. Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round- robin merely deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed pairings in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, Team 3 vs Team 4 The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi- finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide whether or not its chances of eventually winning the tournament would be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi-finalist. It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre- set*. When the trial was actually held, after three quarters of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after three quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that different team it would be Team 1 with the carry-forward advantage. Therefore, Team 1 approached the Director in charge, and requested permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. As Director in charge, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mon Dec 8 04:10:59 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 03:10:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> Personal anecdotes add little to the argument. Anyway my foreign bridge experiences are all happy. The nearest I can get to pandering to Maciej's curiosity is the vague memory of an incident in an event sponsored, a long time ago, by a French Bridge Club (in the UK). My sister (a beginner) and I played in a pairs competition. We called the director to complain that opponents all appeared to employ */Canap?/* but forgot to alert, and we kept being damaged The director amazed us by - - Informing us that in France (and America), players open an */artificial minor/* with only three cards in the suit. - Admonishing us for failing to alert our */natural four-card major/* and */weak no-trump/* openings. Everybody laughed. There was no acrimony. We enjoyed the rest if the tournament. Reading Bridge, however, occasionally loses members, almost always because of legal misunderstandings. Recently we lost another 2 pairs (Pleasant couples but inexperienced Bridge players) because of *adverse rulings*. I'm told that one case was an acrimonious dispute over a non-alerted transfer that allegedly damaged opponents. The director was polite and patient but the foreign visitors were adamant that the bid wasn't alertable in their native country. More often, players don't understand or agree with relevant laws and regulations, but learn to live with their irritation. I confess that I've studied local regulations but still don't understand them. And directors give conflicting explanations. Luckily, disclosure infractions are rarely noticed, reported, or penalised. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 05:17:16 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:17:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: David Burn asserted (with RH emphasis): >>It would be permissible for a Regulating Authority to say "before >>commencing play, you must tell your opponents your no-trump range >>and whether you play four- or five-card majors; if your opponents >>want to find out what else you're doing, they **must** use Law 20 Grattan Endicott quibbled: >+=+ I tend to feel that there are things about the Law 40 >disclosure requirements that blml subscribers might explore >further. [big snip] >Let us ask ourselves what this means. What is "to make available"? >So I consult the dictionary and it tells me > 'available' = accessible, obtainable, to be had. >Thus it would seem 'available' is not synonymous with 'supplied' or >'given up front to opponents'. It is possible to construe this as >indicating that there are some understandings in the 'alertable' >category, for example, which should be disclosed if opponents >enquire about them before commencing play but which it is not >required to disclose on the SC or by special notice to opponents. >Enquiry can perhaps be in general terms - something like 'Have >you any alertable understandings that the regulations do not >require you to list on your System Card but which are unusual?' > 3. Any item listed on the SC is also to be explained in answer >to enquiry before commencing play. Richard Hills: For example, Grattan Endicott's interpretation has an advantage over David Burn's interpretation if the "Stayman" box is ticked on the opps System Card. If I am legally entitled to check whether Stayman could be used with less than game-invitational strength and/or could be used without a four-card major by asking a Law 40A1(b) question **before** the match, this prevents unnecessary Law 16B constraint on partner and/or unnecessary Law 16A2 benefit to the other side caused by me asking a Law 20 question **during** the auction. Grattan Endicott: [snip] >Anyway, the law is open to interpretation. It is worthy of thought >and I do not have any particular prerogative to say this is how it >is. I make mention of a possibility that has not so far attracted >WBFLC attention, to the best of my recollection. Guidelines may be >needed; RAs can help in the interim. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Official WBF Laws Committee guideline, revised October 2008 WBF Code of Practice, page 8 (with RH emphasis): "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 Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 8 06:21:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:21:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: General Omar Bradley (1893-1981): "The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." Robert Frick asserted: >Another point. Your example is not convincing. Yes, I was >potentially influencing the scores of other opponents. I am allowed >to influence their scores. Richard Hills, ethical infant: An incomplete statement. You may not influence their scores in an unLawful way. Robert Frick asserted: >I do that every time I bid or play. To me, the worst is shooting, >which is legal. Richard Hills, ethical infant: An incomplete statement. Shooting is rarely legal, since taking an anti-percentage action is rarely consistent with the Law 72A requirement "to obtain a higher score". Robert Frick asserted: >Second is giving up when you aren't doing well, which is legal. Richard Hills, ethical infant: An incomplete statement. Giving up is rarely legal, since taking an anti-percentage action is rarely consistent with the Law 72A requirement "to obtain a higher score". Robert Frick asserted: >Then there is hand-hogging Richard Hills, ethical infant: An incomplete statement. Hand-hogging is rarely legal, only legal when the Regulating Authority has reversed this Law 40B2(a) default: "...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..." Robert Frick asserted: >and trying to make things exciting with some crazy bid. Richard Hills, ethical infant: An incomplete statement. Crazy by whose standards? For example -> 28th July 2004 posting: You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional player at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your partnership's two-minute system discussion resulted in an agreement to play KISS, Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. Matchpoint pairs Dlr: North Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 3NT(1) ?(2) You, South, hold: J943 T7 KT8742 7 (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. (2) Please explain. What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you consider giving? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 4 17:45:24 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:45:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: References: <4937F09C.6020501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49380924.4020905@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 4, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > >> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >>> Descriptions of certain specified partnership understandings >>> (presumably the most important or most frequently asked about ones) >>> must be written on the SC/CC, to be made available to an opponent on >>> request at his turn to bid or play. >>> >>> Descriptions of the remainder of the partnership understandings may >>> be retained in the brains of the partners, to be made available to an >>> opponent on request at his turn to bid or play. >>> >> What about supplemental notes ? >> > > What about them? "The RA specifies the manner in which this shall > be done." They can require, permit or forbid supplemental notes as > they choose, and may mandate or regulate what should be included in > them. None of that involves repealing the first sentence of L40A1 > (b). "Each partnership has a duty to make available..." The RA > decides what part of that must, or may, be made available in writing > on a CC, in supplementary notes, on graven tablets You mean, from the time they were playing KAL.MESh MIN ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: kal.mes.min.doc Type: application/msword Size: 20480 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081204/7840bd7c/attachment-0001.doc From ccw.in.nc at gmail.com Thu Dec 4 23:49:30 2008 From: ccw.in.nc at gmail.com (Collins Williams) Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 17:49:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] What to do? Message-ID: Recent conversations about misbids and misexplanations and misinformation have left me confused about the correct way to proceed in the following situation... Partner deals and the auction begins P (P) P 1N (15-17) X Under our agreements (adopted more than a year ago) this double shows single suited in a minor or both majors. I alert and so explain. We continue: P (P) P (1N) (15-17) X (P) 2C (P) 2S My 2 Clubs is more or less forced. Partner's 2S is undefined. We have the meta agreement that All Strange Bids Are Forcing (ASBAF) but partner is a passed hand, it is 10:30 PM, she has worked a full day and mentioned how tired she is. It is quite likely she has bid under our previous agreement where this would show a single suited hand with spades. Our opponents are relative newbies and I want to do two things: (a) provide a good example of ethical behavior (b) make sure they understand what has in all likelihood occurred. Are these two goals in conflict? If my opponents were not newbies would my obligations be any different? Am I forced to bid? (I don't think so since partner is a passed hand but will listen to dissenting opinion). So... how do I sort this out? Thanks in advance Collins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081204/19a8587b/attachment.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 8 10:15:27 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:15:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002e01c95915$86d374c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> If I call the director, I am not striving to restore equity. Declarer just didn't see the king or called for the wrong card. I am not especially happy about calling the director. Declarer will, quite fairly, think I am being petty and unfriendly. My partner doesn't like to win that way. So why should I call the director just to make everyone unhappy? (Except of course to conform to L10A.) > +=+ But isn't that at the heart of the question? That and Law 9B1? But Law 9A1 and Law 9A2 both use the 'may draw attention' form and not to do it is not an infraction of law - "is not wrong"*. So if you and your partner remain silent Law 9B1 does not apply. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ (* see Introduction) From PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Dec 8 10:16:35 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:16:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?What_to_do=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1L9cEF-0Oe4mG0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> From: "Collins Williams" > Recent conversations about misbids and misexplanations and > misinformation have left me confused about the correct way to proceed > in the following situation... > ?Partner deals and the auction begins > P (P) P 1N ? (15-17) > X > Under our agreements (adopted more than a year ago) this double shows > single suited in a minor or both majors. I alert and so explain. ?We > continue: > P (P) P (1N) ? (15-17) > X ?(P) 2C (P) ? ? > 2S > My 2 Clubs is more or less forced. Partner's 2S is undefined. ?We > have the meta agreement that All Strange Bids Are Forcing (ASBAF) but > partner is a passed hand, it is 10:30 PM, she has worked a full day > and mentioned how tired she is. ?It is quite likely she has bid under > our previous agreement where this would show a single suited hand with > spades. > Our opponents are relative newbies and I want to do two things: (a) > provide a good example of ethical behavior (b) make sure they > understand what has in all likelihood occurred. ?Are these two goals > in conflict? No If your regs state something like "alert all bids (calls) which have a special meaning opponents might not know" I would alert and explain 1. 2S is undefined ("No agreement") 2. ASBAF 3. Former understanding of a singlesuiter in S > If my opponents were not newbies would my obligations be any > different? No > Am I forced to bid? (I don't think so since partner is a passed > hand but will listen to dissenting opinion). No You don't have UI, so you (and your bidding) are not restricted in any way. (But partner may have a problem afterwards, as she had UI before bidding 2S) Peter > So... how do I sort this out? > ? Thanks in advance > ? ? ?Collins From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 8 10:41:24 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:41:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003b01c95919$2611e050$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 4:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > [snip] > >>Anyway, the law is open to interpretation. It is worthy of thought >>and I do not have any particular prerogative to say this is how it >>is. I make mention of a possibility that has not so far attracted >>WBFLC attention, to the best of my recollection. Guidelines may be >>needed; RAs can help in the interim. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Official WBF Laws Committee guideline, revised October 2008 > WBF Code of Practice, page 8 (with RH emphasis): > > "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." > +=+ Yes, but is the discussion not about 'whether' but about 'how'? ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 8 11:03:26 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:03:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Comment re Adam Beneschan's email. Message-ID: <001301c9591c$3dcbe9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <1L9cEF-0Oe4mG0@fwd04.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <493CF169.2040808@skynet.be> Peter is quite correct, there is an easy way out of this (other examples may not be so easy) Peter Eidt wrote: > From: "Collins Williams" >> Recent conversations about misbids and misexplanations and >> misinformation have left me confused about the correct way to proceed >> in the following situation... >> Partner deals and the auction begins >> P (P) P 1N (15-17) >> X >> Under our agreements (adopted more than a year ago) this double shows >> single suited in a minor or both majors. I alert and so explain. We >> continue: >> P (P) P (1N) (15-17) >> X (P) 2C (P) >> 2S >> My 2 Clubs is more or less forced. Partner's 2S is undefined. We >> have the meta agreement that All Strange Bids Are Forcing (ASBAF) but >> partner is a passed hand, it is 10:30 PM, she has worked a full day >> and mentioned how tired she is. It is quite likely she has bid under >> our previous agreement where this would show a single suited hand with >> spades. >> Our opponents are relative newbies and I want to do two things: (a) >> provide a good example of ethical behavior (b) make sure they >> understand what has in all likelihood occurred. Are these two goals >> in conflict? > > No > If your regs state something like "alert all bids (calls) > which have a special meaning opponents might not > know" I would alert and explain > 1. 2S is undefined ("No agreement") I would explain this at some more length to opponents. You should say: with a one-suiter in clubs she would pass, with a one-suiter in diamonds she would bid them, with a major two-suiter she would bid them, 2S does not exist (unless you know that with a 6-4 SH she would bid them). > 2. ASBAF If that is really an agreement, tell them that, but then also tell them that passed hands can't bid forcing either - you seem to have that "agreement" as well. > 3. Former understanding of a singlesuiter in S > Since it is clear that there is something wrong, the former understanding might provide an explanation. Why do I call this case easy? Because she already has UI, from your previous explanation. So giving even more UI is not harmful to your side. >> If my opponents were not newbies would my obligations be any >> different? > > No > Indeed not - it is unclear how much of the things you tell us would be GBK to non-newbies in your environment. If ASBAF is a club meta-rule, you would not need to tell them that. >> Am I forced to bid? (I don't think so since partner is a passed >> hand but will listen to dissenting opinion). > > No Of course not. > You don't have UI, so you (and your bidding) are not > restricted in any way. > (But partner may have a problem afterwards, as she > had UI before bidding 2S) > Very sharp, Peter - she may well already have used the UI in bidding 2S. You told us the double previously showed a single suited hand in spades. Then presumably 2S shows something minimal, and 2D and 2H are available to show something extra. If she has only a slight chance of having the extra, she should have bid 2D/H instead! > Peter > >> So... how do I sort this out? >> Thanks in advance >> Collins > Herman. From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 8 11:45:25 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:45:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Amsterdam appeal, Jens Auken letter Message-ID: <002b01c95922$167164a0$43542de0$@nl> First read http://www.bridge.nl/documenten/auken.pdf More later Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 8 14:07:08 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:07:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Reading Bridge, however, occasionally loses members, almost always > because of legal misunderstandings. Recently we lost another 2 pairs > (Pleasant couples but inexperienced Bridge players) because of *adverse > rulings*. I'm told that one case was an acrimonious dispute over a > non-alerted transfer that allegedly damaged opponents. The director was > polite and patient but the foreign visitors were adamant that the bid > wasn't alertable in their native country. > > AG : which is a feeble argument. Enquiring about local alert rules should be a natural reflex when not playing in your own country (or even town). Did the foreign visitors refuse to play anymore, or was it their opponents, who shouldn't have recieved any adverse ruling ? Of course there is always that (non-unique) grumpy French guy who tells us that, in their educated country, I was requested to alert my partner's Transfer 2H response to 1NT -except that we don't play Transfers. Or a variant : "I guess 2H is natural, as there wans't any alert" (cheekily, a way to say that we forgot) - "You're very clever, Sir". I've always wondered why, if Transfers are so common that apparently nobody thinks of any other meaning, they should still be alerted. Apart from that, I don't like the checkbox cards, because when you don't play Standard you can't use the first line of them. And 'other' is an imprefect description, isn't it ? I'd rather write in full '2H = 5H & 4+ minor ca 6-10 HCP' than check 'other' in a line that reads '2H : weak / strong / other'. SC are made for helping opponents, and there is no doubt that the former helps them more. Best regards Alain From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Dec 8 15:12:51 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:12:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> [AG] I've always wondered why, if Transfers are so common that apparently nobody thinks of any other meaning, they should still be alerted. [HvS] And indeed, in NL they are not alertable. However that creates more problems than it solves. Because although transfers over 1NT openings should not be alerted(and natural bids should!) alerts over 1NT rebids or overcalls should be alerted. And after a double again, they should be alerted. By now, everybody is sufficiently confused that this rule is worthless. However, as I have often said, between reasonable players any alert rule is OK. Only in the presence of obnoxious Secretary birds is there ever a real problem. Hans International universal alert rule: "If you think your opponents might otherwise get it wrong, alert" From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 15:22:05 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:22:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493D2D8D.4070303@talktalk.net> [Maciej] I have no idea of the structure of British tournaments. But in Poland many partnerships are pick-up. Nearly all in local tournaments (it frequently starts with a phone - "wanna play tomorrow? yeah"), most of in local congresses, at least distinctive minority (closer to half) in national tournaments (e.g. I played in Krakow [550km distance] in the Grand Prix cycle with the partner from Silesia for the first time). And during our big summer congresses it is very popular to play different tournaments with different partners (unless you are top expert and fighting for the main price). In all this cases it is totally impractical to prepare the CC earlier. So the players usually have 5-15 minutes before the play commences and that is enough to fill a MiniCC, but not to describe a whole system. And many players are not so rich to stay in the hotels or possess a laptop with internet collection to be able to prepare and print the CC just before the tournament. [Nigel] This week, I hope to play in tournaments with 2 new partners. I telephoned each of them to find out what they like to play before I OK'd it. I then asked them to email me their system-card or to bring a couple to the tournament. If there is no time to do this, we will have to complete system cards. I agree that is a nuisance. Like Polish cards, UK cards have a few check-boxes to simplify the task. As suggested originally, it is the overall layout (headings, sections-order, notation, look and feel) that should be standardised. A local legislature could insert convenient check-boxes or whatever into the standard card. Although the information would have to be in the appropriate place on the card, so that all players, including strangers, know where to look. I don't like the idea of using *proper names* rather than *descriptions* because even local players may be unfamiliar with some of the jargon. Anyway, as usual, if a country judges the standard format to be unsuitable, it would be free to over-ride the law, and design its own from scratch. Nevertheless, think a standard format would be acceptable to most jurisdictions, in the interests of a level playing-field. And it would save hassle for players, in obvious ways. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 8 15:34:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:34:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <014401c956fd$0eccfec0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <014401c956fd$0eccfec0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <11332777-C80E-4F34-8D55-73B05A7D35BE@starpower.net> On Dec 5, 2008, at 12:15 PM, Bystry wrote: >> But the first sentence of L40A1(b) unambiguously requires a >> partnership to supply a "100% complete encyclopedia". > > Eh, interpretations. Your argument is easy to refute. The words are > "make > available" and "before commencing play". So I will make available my > agreements - I'll answer every question about every agreement > before play > commences. And then... It is up to you to remember my answers. I "made > available" my agreements, there is nothing written that they have > to *be > available* during the whole board. > > Word stretching? Bending the law to my idiosyncratic ideas? Sure. > But you're > doing exactly the same although in the other direction. Why is it > so hard to > read what is written and understand it as such? Before the board the > opponents should have an access to all the agreements because they > may want > to prepare the methods to cope with them (and to avoid giving UI to > each > other during the auction by questioning). RAs simply regulate what is > considered to be most frequent, most important, most surprising and > require > that to be put on CC or SC. That should help in most cases but of > course > everyone is free to ask for more. And everything he doesn't get > this way > will still be disclosed during the auction if it is relevant. > > Seriously, I'm trying hard but I can't understand what problems do > you have > with such reasoning. > >> Eric Landau I have no problem at all with Maciej's reasoning, as far as it goes. My problem comes with the reading of "will still be disclosed during the auction if it is relevant". "Relevant" to what? IMO, relevant to the asker's subsequent choice of action. I therefore argue that the presumption as to relevance should, in the absence of a determination to the contrary, be left to the asker, rather than to the "askee". At the table, this means that, if someone asks you a question about your understandings per se (a question you could have answered before starting play against these opponents), your first obligation is to answer it. Then, if you believe it to have been improperly (perhaps "irrelevantly") asked, you're free to call the director and make your case. If the director finds that the question was geniuinely irrelevant to the asker's choice of action ("no bridge reason"), he can penalize any of several violations of L74. My only problem is with those who would allow the player being asked to make his own presumption, ahead of the TD's, and so to refuse to answer the question, putting the "accusatory" burden on the wrong side. When a player asks a question and his opponent refuses to answer it, someone has committed a violation of correct procedure: either the question was improper or the refusal to answer it was. My disagreement with Maciej is merely over to which side the initial "presumption of innocence" goes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 15:43:20 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:43:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <493D3288.4000602@talktalk.net> AG : which is a feeble argument. Enquiring about local alert rules should be a natural reflex when not playing in your own country (or even town). Did the foreign visitors refuse to play anymore, or was it their opponents, who shouldn't have recieved any adverse ruling ? Of course there is always that (non-unique) grumpy French guy who tells us that, in their educated country, I was requested to alert my partner's Transfer 2H response to 1NT -except that we don't play Transfers. Or a variant : "I guess 2H is natural, as there wans't any alert" (cheekily, a way to say that we forgot) - "You're very clever, Sir". I've always wondered why, if Transfers are so common that apparently nobody thinks of any other meaning, they should still be alerted. [Nigel] The foreign couple were charming when they played previously. I think one of them may have failed to alert a transfer after partner's 1N was doubled. Anyway, they appealed the director's ruling, lost the appeal, and rushed out of the club, never to return. I know little about the actual dispute. I was doing my best to reply to a question by Maciej. From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 15:41:04 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:41:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <114750.1792.qm@web87103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <493C84DC.1080304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000d01c95942$ffc3b7a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Nigel] > Current local disclosure regulations specify that you alert departures > from an *implicit* set of agreements that all players must learn. Where? Which regulations? Nigel, stop being vague about the topic, present specific examples - in the country X the players have to alert only departures from system Y. Maybe there are such countries but I don't know any. So how can I treat your arguments seriously? Main thrust of our regulations is - alert everything what can be a surprise for your opponents. Plus there are some details - any doubles shouldn't be alerted, 1C (Polish Club) and 1D response (negative, minors or 16+ bal, without 4 card major), 2D Wilkosz (I suppose that would change for Multi soon), weak twos, natural preempts, some more basic things. And that is all. All the remaining calls should be alerted if artificial, untypical, unexpected etc, as it is in the rest of the world. There is nothing in our policy that you should alert departures from WJ or Strefa. > that I'm suggesting is that this notional system becomes an ordinary > playable system. Beginners can learn it. Beginners are much better situated if they learn something common in their environment. This way it's easier for them to understand their opponents' bidding and learn from it. They can always consult the local experts and their friends. And if beginners are to be taught by a teacher nothing stops him from introducing any system he wishes. You can call it a "standard", WTP? > You can scrap local most disclosure regulations and replace > them with the simple rule: "disclose departures from the standard". Nigel, please, it is not hard to understand - that would work only if we had 100 different "Standard Systems". Otherwise the players wouldn't comply with your regulations. What is a purpose of alerting every call in the auction? Get the message - the role of alerting is to warn the opponents - "this call may be something different from what you may think", not to make life easy for alert policy readers. If you force Polish players to alert Polish Club 1C they won't be warned from Better Minor, Precision or other locally untypical things. If you force us to alert 2D if not natural (nearly nobody plays that way), we wouldn't be able to distinguish between Multi and Wilkosz. So in fact all the calls would have to be questioned and the whole alert system would be totally redundant. > I like the idea of a *global standard* because, wherever you are, you > can alert in the same way and opponents always receive adequate > information. Great. You want to ruin all the sensible local regulations because rarely some foreigners may appear. So, following your logic, Poland should change our road traffic to left-sided because the guest from the GB would have easier time. Even suggesting something like that is so stupid that I cannot conceive how the apparently knowledgable, intelligent and experienced man like you may drivel so senseless. > Again the main > difference is that the stranger would add a new playable system to his > repertoire rather than clog up his brain with another daft mess of local > regulations. Sorry, I should have read this passage before I answered the last one. Now I'm in a lack of words. Do you really think that reading and understanding local alert policy (approximately 10 minutes in Poland) is "clogging the brain", but learning the whole unfamiliar bidding system is something easier, requiring less work from the players? ... Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 15:45:31 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:45:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001501c95943$9ea40500$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > > Yes, if with a few rounds to go in a round-robin tournament (so the > scores are important to the opponents) two pairs are certain to be > sharing last and second-last places it is important for the integrity > of the tournament to keep those pairs motivated to continue playing > winning bridge. Even better are side-bets where you are paid for every place you are finally higher than your opponent. That way it's important to be in the 78th place instead of 99th, even if your friend wins the event. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 15:51:45 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:51:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> Message-ID: <493D3481.5020207@talktalk.net> [Hans van Staveren] And indeed, in NL they are not alertable. However that creates more problems than it solves. Because although transfers over 1NT openings should not be alerted(and natural bids should!) alerts over 1NT rebids or overcalls should be alerted. And after a double again, they should be alerted. By now, everybody is sufficiently confused that this rule is worthless. However, as I have often said, between reasonable players any alert rule is OK. Only in the presence of obnoxious Secretary birds is there ever a real problem. International universal alert rule: "If you think your opponents might otherwise get it wrong, alert" [Nigel] Explain that to David Burn, after he has disqualified you :) From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 15:59:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 15:59:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net><000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001b01c95945$90d0fa80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [Nigel] Personal anecdotes add little to the argument. Anyway my foreign bridge experiences are all happy. [Maciej] So on what basis are you appealing for changes? To have a reason to fix something it has to be broken. [Nigel] Reading Bridge, however, occasionally loses members, almost always because of legal misunderstandings. Recently we lost another 2 pairs (Pleasant couples but inexperienced Bridge players) because of *adverse rulings*. I'm told that one case was an acrimonious dispute over a non-alerted transfer that allegedly damaged opponents. The director was polite and patient but the foreign visitors were adamant that the bid wasn't alertable in their native country. [Maciej] Ahhh. One club lost two pairs becuase they were forced to alert a transfer and they didn't want to comply? So now try to think, *really* try to think, what would happened if we introduced your "Standard System" and those players would have to alert the transfers in their own country, in the whole world. Do you think that they would be happy *then*? In my opinion they would rather quit bridge altogether and play only in their homes. [Nigel] More often, players don't understand or agree with relevant laws and regulations, but learn to live with their irritation. I confess that I've studied local regulations but still don't understand them. [Maciej] And it never came to your mind that maybe it's your fault? You often claimed that nearly everybody opens weaker in 3rd hand and you lost the matches because of that. So maybe it is time that *you* start to play as all around you and not to try to change all the regulations because then they would fit your whimsies and be easily understood by you. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 16:11:48 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:11:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl><493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004601c95947$4ae15040$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, AG: Apart from that, I don't like the checkbox cards, because when you don't play Standard you can't use the first line of them. And 'other' is an imprefect description, isn't it ? I'd rather write in full '2H = 5H & 4+ minor ca 6-10 HCP' than check 'other' in a line that reads '2H : weak / strong / other'. SC are made for helping opponents, and there is no doubt that the former helps them more. MB: I don't know how are your CC's layouts designed. In Poland "other" always has an empty field to precise the agreement. So e.g. - 2H/S have three options - weak, 5-5, and an empty place for something different. There you have to put your '5H & 4+ minor ca 6-10 HCP' (or you can correct 5-5 to 5-4 but the former is more readable). Checkboxes are perfect if you have to fill the CC quickly before the play begins. Filling our MiniCC takes 1 minute if you do that placidly. Filling joint with making agreements takes at most 5 minutes. But having to write everything those values would be many times higher. Of course if you prepare your SC at home you can use other layouts, even invent your own. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 8 16:25:46 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 10:25:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net> <001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <8F85E82F-157A-45C4-8600-C02B78659016@starpower.net> On Dec 7, 2008, at 2:59 PM, Bystry wrote: >> [Nigel] >> In the past, BLMLers have tried to defend "a *local* card for *local* >> people". But locals are already familiar with most *local* >> methods. It >> is strangers who are kept needlessly in the dark. Both could >> easily find >> their way round a standard card. > > [Maciej] > Yeah, perfect idea. For the convenience of one or two foreign > players all > the natives would have to change their habits and fill the SC not > matching > their systems. Strange that you said nothing about "Standard > System". For > enforcing them to waste their time coping with "Standard SC" our > players > would be merciful and content themselves with ousting you back to > the GB by > kicking your a**. But for enforcing them to learn "Standard System" > they > would burn you at the stake. :-) [...] > Sorry Nigel, if you want to play abroad you have to comply with the > local > rules, as I would do playing in the GB. > >> I agree, however, that the laws should define a *standard system* (a >> playable system that players could use if they wanted). The >> *default* law >> should be that you disclose *departures* from that standard system. > > > Moonshine. In Poland nearly all bids would be alerted. So the real > purpose > of alerting (warning against something untypical or unexpected) would > diminish. Perhaps Nigel might want to ask Richard for a copy of Symmetric Relay, or ask Maciej for a writeup of the Polish Club, and then try writing up his own methods as "*departures* from that... system". His notion of disclosure by means of defining only one's deviations from some "standard system" works very well for those who might play something reasonably close to that standard system, but the suggested exercise might provide him with a better appreciation for the ludicrous requirement it would impose on those who don't. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 16:49:32 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 16:49:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 References: <014401c956fd$0eccfec0$15844c59@chello.pl> <11332777-C80E-4F34-8D55-73B05A7D35BE@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005a01c9594c$906207e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > I have no problem at all with Maciej's reasoning, as far as it goes. > My problem comes with the reading of "will still be disclosed during > the auction if it is relevant". "Relevant" to what? To the meaning of the auction (call). > If the director finds that the question > was geniuinely irrelevant to the asker's choice of action ("no bridge > reason"), he can penalize any of several violations of L74. But the problem is that TDs won't give those PPs. Don't say, you would, that doesn't change anything. I know the reality. In Poland TDs don't give PPs for more serious infractions and I read many people from the other countries claiming the same. > When a player asks a question and his opponent refuses to answer it, > someone has committed a violation of correct procedure: either the > question was improper or the refusal to answer it was. My > disagreement with Maciej is merely over to which side the initial > "presumption of innocence" goes. Mainly, yes. It may be caused by the different habits in our local environments. And it surely is caused by my different philosophical approach to disclosure and playing bridge. When I have time I'll collect my thoughts and start a new topic to explain my attitude. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 8 17:19:41 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:19:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <563A4FBC-9041-4E5F-9BB9-88B761C684E4@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2008, at 12:21 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > General Omar Bradley (1893-1981): > > "The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without > conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants." > > Robert Frick asserted: > >> Another point. Your example is not convincing. Yes, I was >> potentially influencing the scores of other opponents. I am allowed >> to influence their scores. > > Richard Hills, ethical infant: > > An incomplete statement. You may not influence their scores in an > unLawful way. > > Robert Frick asserted: > >> I do that every time I bid or play. To me, the worst is shooting, >> which is legal. > > Richard Hills, ethical infant: > > An incomplete statement. Shooting is rarely legal, since taking an > anti-percentage action is rarely consistent with the Law 72A > requirement "to obtain a higher score". Not so. If there were a period after "score" in TFLB, it might be taken to mandate an obligation to try to maximize one's expected score. But the obligation in TFLB is to try "to obtain a higher score than the other contestants", which means maximizing one's chances of winning the event. "Shooting" is an attempt to maximize one's chances of winning at the expense of one's expected score, so one could more readily argue that it is mandated by L72A than that it is forbidden. > Robert Frick asserted: > >> Second is giving up when you aren't doing well, which is legal. > > Richard Hills, ethical infant: > > An incomplete statement. Giving up is rarely legal, since taking an > anti-percentage action is rarely consistent with the Law 72A > requirement "to obtain a higher score". Not so. As L72A imposes an obligation to try to win, it imposes no further obligation if and when winning is no longer possible. > Robert Frick asserted: > >> Then there is hand-hogging > > Richard Hills, ethical infant: > > An incomplete statement. Hand-hogging is rarely legal, only legal > when the Regulating Authority has reversed this Law 40B2(a) default: > > "...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..." Not so. If my bidding 2H means "I want to play in 2H", partner's bidding 2H must also mean "I want to play in 2H". That doesn't mean that my partner and I are not permitted to differ as to which particular holdings might cause us to want to play in 2H. Indeed, our right to do so is guaranteed by the last sentence of L40B2(a) ("must not restrict... judgment"). > Robert Frick asserted: > >> and trying to make things exciting with some crazy bid. > > Richard Hills, ethical infant: > > An incomplete statement. Crazy by whose standards? For example -> > > 28th July 2004 posting: > > You are a semi-sponsor player partnering a semi-professional player > at a semi-social bridge club for the first time. Your partnership's > two-minute system discussion resulted in an agreement to play KISS, > Aussie Acol with Benjy Twos. > > Matchpoint pairs > Dlr: North > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your > personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define > a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play > the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Please explain. > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? > > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you > consider giving? As Richard has provided us with all of the information he has available on which we might base the presumed interpretation of partner's call he asks for, I would suggest we give his opponents exactly the same information he just gave us. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 17:33:36 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:33:36 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c95942$ffc3b7a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <114750.1792.qm@web87103.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <493C84DC.1080304@talktalk.net> <000d01c95942$ffc3b7a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493D4C60.7050305@talktalk.net> [Maciej] ... alert everything what can be a surprise for your opponents. Plus there are some details - any doubles shouldn't be alerted, 1C (Polish Club) and 1D response (negative, minors or 16+ bal, without 4 card major), 2D Wilkosz (I suppose that would change for Multi soon), weak twos, natural preempts, some more basic things. And that is all. All the remaining calls should be alerted if artificial, untypical, unexpected etc, as it is in the rest of the world. [Nige1] You alert departures from an implicitly defined set of agreements. [Maciej] There is nothing in our policy that you should alert departures from WJ or Strefa. [Nige1] Both of which are playable methods, and hence candidates for a *local* standard system. [Maciej] Great. You want to ruin all the sensible local regulations because rarely some foreigners may appear. So, following your logic, Poland should change our road traffic to left-sided because the guest from the GB would have easier time. Even suggesting something like that is so stupid that I cannot conceive how the apparently knowledgable, intelligent and experienced man like you may drivel so senseless. [Nige1] Perhaps you are right Maciej. For decades, I've advocated constructive proposals, on BLML, RGB, Bridgetalk, and BBO. :( Most attract no public support and little private support. :) But in a few areas, some others have arrived at the same conclusions. :) And criticism helps to refine ideas. :) Argument is fun; and good for the game, in the long run. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 8 17:51:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 11:51:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] What to do? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Dec 4, 2008, at 5:49 PM, Collins Williams wrote: > Recent conversations about misbids and misexplanations and > misinformation have left me confused about the correct way to > proceed in the following situation... > > Partner deals and the auction begins > > P (P) P 1N (15-17) > X > > Under our agreements (adopted more than a year ago) this double > shows single suited in a minor or both majors. I alert and so > explain. We continue: > > P (P) P (1N) (15-17) > X (P) 2C (P) > 2S > > My 2 Clubs is more or less forced. Partner's 2S is undefined. We > have the meta agreement that All Strange Bids Are Forcing (ASBAF) > but partner is a passed hand, it is 10:30 PM, she has worked a full > day and mentioned how tired she is. It is quite likely she has bid > under our previous agreement where this would show a single suited > hand with spades. > > Our opponents are relative newbies and I want to do two things: (a) > provide a good example of ethical behavior (b) make sure they > understand what has in all likelihood occurred. Are these two > goals in conflict? No. > If my opponents were not newbies would my obligations be any > different? No. > Am I forced to bid? (I don't think so since partner is a passed > hand but will listen to dissenting opinion). No. > So... how do I sort this out? Alert 2S. Explain when asked that 2S is undefined in your current methods, explain your meta-agreement but note that it might matter that partner is a passed hand, and explain that it might be relevant that under your previous agreement it would have shown whatever. Bid whatever you choose. I notice that this is the same generic question/answer as in my previous post, in reply to Richard. It goes like this: Question: The auction was X. My partner bid Y and the opponents asked what it meant. Here's what I know that might matter: Z. What should I tell the opponents? Generic answer: Z. You just did the best you could to explain what you know about partner's call to us, so why would you do anything different to explain it to them? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Mon Dec 8 17:57:13 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:57:13 -0800 Subject: [blml] Comment re Adam Beneschan's email. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:03:26 GMT." <001301c9591c$3dcbe9e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200812081653.IAA23017@mailhub.irvine.com> > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ A correspondent remarks privately as under. > Any reactions? Just that my name appears to be taken in vain here. I've only made one contribution to this thread, and I don't think it bears any relation to what has been ascribed to me. -- Adam From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 18:03:04 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:03:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c95945$90d0fa80$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net><000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> <001b01c95945$90d0fa80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493D5348.3090209@talktalk.net> [Maciej] And it never came to your mind that maybe it's your fault? You often claimed that nearly everybody opens weaker in 3rd hand and you lost the matches because of that. So maybe it is time that *you* start to play as all around you and not to try to change all the regulations because then they would fit your whimsies and be easily understood by you. [Nigel] You refer to the old EBU Orange Book *rule of 18/19* regulation as applied to *3rd in hand* openings. It is quite clear and my acquaintances agreed with David Burn's interpretation. Few other players had read it. Fewer complied with it. Even directors flouted it. I wrote to the EBU L&EC, who, eventually, changed it. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 8 18:08:34 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:08:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493D3481.5020207@talktalk.net> Message-ID: [NG] International universal alert rule: "If you think your opponents might otherwise get it wrong, alert" Explain that to David Burn, after he has disqualified you :) [DALB] I don't actually mind that sort of rule, although I am aware of a strongly-held view within our Laws and Ethics Committee to the effect that the purpose of alerting is to comply with the regulations, and not necessarily to tell the opponents anything useful. But the task of creating a single "default system" at any level above the local is a daunting one, and the task of creating a single default disclosure method based on such a system more daunting still. Only today, still at the Milan tournament, I had the pleasure of playing against two of Bystry's countrymen, and the bidding went: Romanski Burn Puczynsiki Sandqvist 2C (1) Pass 2D (2) 2H Dble (3) (1) 5+ clubs, maybe a four-card major, 11-15 (2) Asking (3) Take a guess before reading on Now, I venture to suggest to you that it would not occur to very many people at all that this double was not for penalty. But it wasn't - it showed spades (a pass would have shown hearts and invited partner to double). Is that standard? No (not even in Poland, before Bystry starts pontificating). Is it comprehensible? No, not really - technically it is sound, but you need to play at a level rather more rarefied than the Reading Bridge Club in order to appreciate this. Should I have been alerted to it? Not in Poland, where I could always ask, but yes in England, where I could not always ask without risk. Would I have been alerted to it in England? No, because you see... David Burn London, England From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 8 18:13:39 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:13:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <3DCB032563B74643B20EC6410944789F@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Richard Hills: > >>>Yes, it seems that Calcutta tournaments would be illegal in the UK, >>>not just because the bridge players are unclothed, but also because >>>those players who have bet on their current opponents would have an >>>inherent conflict of interest. > > Maciej Bystry: > >>In my opinion side bets are actually very beneficial for bridge. >>Yes, some cheats may slip through, but there are many pairs who have >>a bad tournament and they know it after e.g. 2 sessions of 5 - most >>of them stop playing real bridge and they have a great unnecessary >>impact on final results (excluding Swiss pairs), unless of course >>they made a side bet with their friends, especially when the >>difference in final placements counts. > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, if with a few rounds to go in a round-robin tournament (so the > scores are important to the opponents) two pairs are certain to be > sharing last and second-last places it is important for the integrity > of the tournament to keep those pairs motivated to continue playing > winning bridge. Therefore a private side-bet between the two pairs on > avoiding the wooden spoon is advantageous. But disadvantageous would > be the reverse private side-bet between the two pairs on _achieving_ > the wooden spoon, since then both would play misere (a problem which > occurred in international Cricket a few years ago, when bookies bribed > the then captains of South Africa, Pakistan and India to play misere). > > Plus Edgar Kaplan was opposed to ludicrous conditions of contest which > encouraged pairs or teams to play misere. For example -> > > 19th May 2004 posting: > > Six teams participated in the 2003 trials to select the Australian > Open Team. The ABF decided to start with a round-robin stage, then > follow-up with a series of knockout quarter-finals, semi-finals, and a > grand final. > > So far, so good. > > But the ABF Tournament Unit now counted on its fingers, and noted that > six teams playing in a set of knockout quarter-finals would not easily > produce four winning teams to participate in a set of knockout semi- > finals. > > The logical decision for the ABF Tournament Unit to make would be to > decide that the two lowest ranked teams from the round-robin would be > eliminated, and the knockout quarter-final stage would be scrapped, > with the best four teams from the round-robin proceeding directly to > knockout semi-finals. > > Instead, the ABF Tournament Unit decided that all teams would qualify > from the round-robin to the knockout quarter-finals, with the round- > robin merely deciding seeding (and carry-forward). The fixed pairings > in the quarter-finals would be: Team 1 vs Team 6, Team 2 vs Team 5, > Team 3 vs Team 4 > > The three winners from the quarter-finals would qualify to the semi- > finals, plus the highest ranked loser. That is, Team 1 was playing a > meaningless (for it) quarter-final match, and had the power to decide > whether or not its chances of eventually winning the tournament would > be enhanced if Team 6 was also a semi-finalist. > > It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout matches was *pre- > set*. When the trial was actually held, after three quarters of the > quarter-finals Team 1 had a big lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the > results after three quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted > that its likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage > against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, then it > would play a different team in its semi-final, and against that > different team it would be Team 1 with the carry-forward advantage. > > Therefore, Team 1 approached the Director in charge, and requested > permission to concede its quarter-final match against Team 6, despite > Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. > > As Director in charge, how would you rule? There is nothing to rule on. The CoC have their say. John > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 Mon Dec 8 18:17:30 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 17:17:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <116AD6FBE9764A3D87473502C9B5FA88@JOHN> > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 3NT(1) ?(2) > > You, South, hold: > > J943 > T7 > KT8742 > 7 > > (1) Undiscussed. You know that your semi-pro pard does not know your > personal preferred agreement for a 3NT opening. > But, both you and your semi-pro pard know that: > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define > a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. > (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play > the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > (2) Please explain. > > What explanation of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you give? (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. > > What other explanations of your semi-pro pard's 3NT bid do you > consider giving? > (a) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club define a 3NT opening as 25-27 hcp, balanced. (b) Half the partnerships at this semi-social bridge club play the Gambling 3NT, showing a solid minor. John > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 8 18:53:02 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:53:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <003b01c95919$2611e050$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003b01c95919$2611e050$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <7233FBC8-5A15-4971-AFE9-0568281727A5@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2008, at 4:41 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: > >>> Anyway, the law is open to interpretation. It is worthy of thought >>> and I do not have any particular prerogative to say this is how it >>> is. I make mention of a possibility that has not so far attracted >>> WBFLC attention, to the best of my recollection. Guidelines may be >>> needed; RAs can help in the interim. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Official WBF Laws Committee guideline, revised October 2008 >> WBF Code of Practice, page 8 (with RH emphasis): >> >> "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." > > +=+ Yes, but is the discussion not about 'whether' but about 'how'? The discussion is about whether, when, during an auction, an opponent asks you a question about your a priori partnership understandings (i.e. a question you could have answered "before commencing play"), you: (a) must answer it, or (b) may refuse to answer it if you do not believe it conforms to the requirements of L20F1. I'd call that a question of "whether", rather than "how", "since [the understanding] may affect their choice of action [it] must be disclosed". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 8 19:14:09 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 13:14:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> References: <000e01c95623$590d0780$0b271680$@com> <000b01c956ce$69205c70$3b611550$@com><001a01c95865$7959f6d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <493C00E2.9000605@talktalk.net><000701c9589a$4d783060$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C21C7.6050203@talktalk.net><001501c958a6$580667c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C3288.8000201@talktalk.net><000701c958b7$743a3140$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C6B81.80504@talktalk.net> <000d01c958db$0a99bf20$15844c59@chello.pl> <493C9043.8080503@talktalk.net> <493D1BFC.1070006@ulb.ac.be> <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> Message-ID: <9BBF57DF-36EC-421F-9E7F-29141B94BE03@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Hans van Staveren wrote: > [AG] > > I've always wondered why, if Transfers are so common that apparently > nobody thinks of any other meaning, they should still be alerted. > > [HvS] > > And indeed, in NL they are not alertable. However that creates more > problems > than it solves. Because although transfers over 1NT openings should > not be > alerted(and natural bids should!) alerts over 1NT rebids or > overcalls should > be alerted. And after a double again, they should be alerted. > > By now, everybody is sufficiently confused that this rule is > worthless. > > However, as I have often said, between reasonable players any alert > rule is > OK. Only in the presence of obnoxious Secretary birds is there ever > a real > problem. The ACBL experience with announcing transfers is a perfect example of Bob Frick's principle that even mildly complex regulations will be reduced to simplisticness (not quite a synonym of "simplicity") by the majority of players. The ACBL has enacted and publicized a regulation saying that if you open a natural NT, or rebid a natural NT on the auction 2C-P-2D-P-, and partner either bids the minimum number of diamonds to show hearts or bids the minimum number of hearts to show spades, you should announce this by using the word "transfer" rather than "alert". IME the majority of players seem to have taken this to mean that at any time, under any circumstances, if you bid any one suit to show any other, you announce "transfer". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From henk at ripe.net Mon Dec 8 20:25:20 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:25:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] Amsterdam appeal, Jens Auken letter In-Reply-To: <116AD6FBE9764A3D87473502C9B5FA88@JOHN> References: <116AD6FBE9764A3D87473502C9B5FA88@JOHN> Message-ID: <493D74A0.1070102@ripe.net> Hans wrote: > First read http://www.bridge.nl/documenten/auken.pdf Interesting :-) Quote: "I [Jens Auken] have advised him that [Mr. Entscho Wladow] and his partner Mr. Michael Elinescu should adjust themselves to what we expect from top players". "Their convention card should be filled out much better than now" "They should avoid any negative tension or problems at the table" Wow, not quite what you'd expect as a response to an appeal about the way a TD/Committee handled a TD call. It sounds to me like the EBL looked for an excuse to severely discipline Wladow & Elinescu. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 8 20:44:10 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:44:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <493D790A.6060504@talktalk.net> [David Burn] .. and the task of creating a single default disclosure method based on such a system more daunting still. [Nigel] What about an ANNOUNCE protocol? as suggested on BLML, some time ago... As soon as partner calls, you announce the call's meaning, unless an opponent asks you to delay explanations until after the auction. At the end of the auction you can ask about each call or just ask the *Sven Pran question* "From partner's bids what can you tell about his hand?" - If you are not accustomed to announcements this may seem strange and clumsy; but we in the EBU already announce some calls. Our experience is that Announcing is popular and works well. There may be theoretical problems with deafness and eaves-dropping but not in my practical experience. - Some "natural" calls have subtle meanings that you must now reveal. - You save the time needed for alerting and asking. - You save even more time if you ask opponents to wait until the end of the auction. - Unauthorised information is drastically reduced. - This law is simple and universal. - This law replaces rain-forests of laws, rules, and regulations. Criticism welcome, especially if you can suggest a better alternative. Some possible variants and their drawbacks ... Partner explains his own calls. On-line, this works OK but is problematic face-to-face. Of course, this *Richard-Hills* option is a necessary fall-back when you cannot remember the system. Explain partner's calls only if they're (formerly) alertable bids. This wouldn't speed up the game and you need to learn masses of disclosure regulations. From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 8 21:21:54 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:21:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [DALB] > Only today, > still at the Milan tournament, I had the pleasure of playing against two of > Bystry's countrymen, and the bidding went: > > Romanski Burn Puczynsiki Sandqvist > 2C (1) Pass 2D (2) 2H > Dble (3) > > (1) 5+ clubs, maybe a four-card major, 11-15 > (2) Asking > (3) Take a guess before reading on > > Now, I venture to suggest to you that it would not occur to very many people > at all that this double was not for penalty. But it wasn't - it showed > spades (a pass would have shown hearts and invited partner to double). Is > that standard? No (not even in Poland, before Bystry starts pontificating). > Is it comprehensible? No, not really - technically it is sound, but you need > to play at a level rather more rarefied than the Reading Bridge Club in > order to appreciate this. Should I have been alerted to it? Not in Poland, > where I could always ask, but yes in England, where I could not always ask > without risk. One little clarification - in Poland the regulations state that no doubles should be alerted (without screens). So indeed, in such situations you generally have to ask but you can also count on the common sense of many opponents who knowingly omit the regulations and alert untypical doubles. I use the same methods as Romanski-Puczynski in many situations (e.g. after 1NT-pass-2C-2M) and I alert such doubles. Against good players it is not imperative but weaker ones may easily be mislead otherwise. As much as I hate to say it - sometimes the spirit of the procedure is really more important than its letter. > Would I have been alerted to it in England? No, because you see... > > David Burn > London, England Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 8 22:06:09 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 08:06:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> Message-ID: Hans van Staveren: >International universal alert rule: "If you think your opponents >might otherwise get it wrong, alert" Richard Hills: ABF exception to universal alert rule: "If the ABF thinks your partner might otherwise get it wrong (for example, the constant confusion amongst partners as to whether a double is penalty or negative), then the ABF defines your ambiguous call as a self- alerting* call." * Self-alerting means that the call _must not_ be alerted but the opponents may, if they wish, enquire _as if_ the call had been alerted Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 8 23:27:24 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:27:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry, one little clarification: >One little clarification - in Poland the regulations state that no >doubles should be alerted (without screens). So indeed, in such >situations you generally have to ask but you can also count on the >common sense of many opponents who knowingly omit the regulations >and alert untypical doubles. I use the same methods as Romanski- >Puczynski in many situations (e.g. after 1NT-pass-2C-2M) and I >alert such doubles. Against good players it is not imperative but >weaker ones may easily be mislead otherwise. As much as I hate to >say it - sometimes the spirit of the procedure is really more >important than its letter. Richard Hills, one little clarification One little clarification - in Australia the regulations state that no doubles should be Alerted (without screens). As much as I love to say it - always every jot and tittle of the letter of the Laws should be obeyed, but with a generous spirit. Grattan Endicott, one little question: +=+ Yes, but is the discussion not about 'whether' but about 'how'? ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills, another little clarification: Eric Landau is debating the related question of "how", but I am discussing "when". My partner and I play doubles even more untypical than those of Romanski-Puczynki. The entire world plays a double in this sequence: 1H - (1S) - X as negative, but the Ali-Hills partnership plays that double as penalty. But rather than infract the ABF self-Alert rule by illegally Alerting our penalty doubles, we instead generously obey the ABF pre-Alert rule -- our Law 40A1(b) obligation to give a **timely** disclosure of our penalty doubles. It is too late to Alert and explain our penalty double under Law 20F1 **after** an unsuspecting opponent has selected a dodgy 2D overcall in the normal expectation of normal safety due to a normal belief that we play normal negative doubles. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 8 23:55:03 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 22:55:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> [MB] So indeed, in such situations you generally have to ask but you can also count on the common sense of many opponents who knowingly omit the regulations and alert untypical doubles. [DALB] Your hand at IMPs, game all, is: KJ93 A9 Q87632 4 RHO opens 2C (Polish, 11-15 with clubs and maybe a major), you elect to pass, LHO bids 2D (relay), partner bids 2H, RHO doubles. [1] What call do you make? [2] What questions do you consider asking before making it? [3] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "spades", does that change your answer to [1] above? [4] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "hearts", does that change your answer to [1] above? [5] How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such as "self-alerting doubles"? David Burn London, England From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Dec 9 00:04:03 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 23:04:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> References: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> Message-ID: <493DA7E3.3060109@talktalk.net> [David Burn] Your hand at IMPs, game all, is: KJ93 A9 Q87632 4 RHO opens 2C (Polish, 11-15 with clubs and maybe a major), you elect to pass, LHO bids 2D (relay), partner bids 2H, RHO doubles. [1] What call do you make? [2] What questions do you consider asking before making it? [3] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "spades", does that change your answer to [1] above? [4] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "hearts", does that change your answer to [1] above? [5] How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such as "self-alerting doubles"? [Nigel] The laws should specify that you *announce* doubles as *penalty* or *takeout* (even if you have to announce no other calls). If you don't announce, then opponents know it is something peculiar (e.g. lead-directing) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 00:14:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 10:14:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Win (was over...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <563A4FBC-9041-4E5F-9BB9-88B761C684E4@starpower.net> Message-ID: Law 72A, second sentence: "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." Eric Landau asserted: >But the obligation in TFLB is to try "to obtain a higher >score than the other contestants", which means maximizing >one's chances of winning the event. >..... >As L72A imposes an obligation to try to win, it imposes no >further obligation if and when winning is no longer >possible. Richard Hills quibbles: It seems to me that Eric's misquote of Law 72A, incorrectly quoting "than the other contestants" rather than correctly quoting "than other contestants" (no "the") has inclined Eric to an interpretation of Law 72A which might attract addubitation. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 9 00:19:44 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:19:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c9598b$74f7e8a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills, another little clarification: > > Eric Landau is debating the related question of "how", but I am > discussing "when". My partner and I play doubles even more > untypical than those of Romanski-Puczynki. The entire world plays > a double in this sequence: > > 1H - (1S) - X > > as negative, but the Ali-Hills partnership plays that double as > penalty. But rather than infract the ABF self-Alert rule by > illegally Alerting our penalty doubles, we instead generously obey > the ABF pre-Alert rule -- our Law 40A1(b) obligation to give a > **timely** disclosure of our penalty doubles. It is too late to > Alert and explain our penalty double under Law 20F1 **after** an > unsuspecting opponent has selected a dodgy 2D overcall in the > normal expectation of normal safety due to a normal belief that we > play normal negative doubles. Sorry, Richard, but pre-alerting that you play penalty doubles is a different thing that pre-alerting many specific situations in which double may be used in a different way than it is popular. I would have to spend at least 2 minutes before every round doing that, almost always pointlessly. I am generally trying to be helpful etc, but when that doesn't cause my serious inconvenience. The regulators are to blame when the opponents are suprsised by the meaning of my double, not me. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets Regards Maciej From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 9 00:28:41 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 18:28:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493DA7E3.3060109@talktalk.net> References: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> <493DA7E3.3060109@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <46CC020EAB3945DABD97B900EED9C0D6@erdos> > [Nigel] > The laws should specify that you *announce* doubles as *penalty* or *takeout* > (even if you have to announce no other calls). > If you don't announce, then opponents know it is something peculiar (e.g. > lead-directing) That doesn't always work because of fuzzy definitions. A double of an opening 4H is takeout in my agreements but is probably left in half the time. And some players play a double after 1H-1NT-2H or 2D(multi)-2H as two-way; partner can guess from his holding whether the doubler has long or short hearts. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 9 00:36:30 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 00:36:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> Message-ID: <001701c9598d$cc35aba0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [DALB] > > Your hand at IMPs, game all, is: > > KJ93 A9 Q87632 4 > > RHO opens 2C (Polish, 11-15 with clubs and maybe a major), you elect to > pass, LHO bids 2D (relay), partner bids 2H, RHO doubles. > > [1] What call do you make? Pass, although playing with irresponsible partner I could think about 3D. There is another possibility - 2D is semi-bluff with good club support but I may always bid something after pass-3C-pass-pass. > [2] What questions do you consider asking before making it? Look above. Trusting partner (that he won't bid 2H red at imps with Kxxxx) I don't have to ask. > [3] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "spades", does > that change your answer to [1] above? No. > [4] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "hearts", does > that change your answer to [1] above? No, but look at point 1). > [5] How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such as > "self-alerting doubles"? Don't blame me. I'm not an alert regulator. I agree that this rule is not clever. AFAIK the main reason for implementing it was a modern trend to play "expert" doubles - meaning something you wish it to mean in current situation. Such alerts cause many UI and MI problems and the authorities decided it's much easier to forbid them than to cope with them. Yeah, that often results in misleading the opponents of the doublers but do you think that they care? "You should have asked and protected yourself, we wash our hands of that". > David Burn > London, England Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 01:16:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 11:16:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493D4C60.7050305@talktalk.net> Message-ID: George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), "The Devil's Disciple": >>SWINDON: What will history say? >>BURGOYNE: History, sir, will tell lies as usual. Nigel Guthrie advocated: [snip] >For decades, I've advocated constructive proposals, on BLML, >RGB, Bridgetalk, and BBO. >:( Most attract no public support and little private support. >:) But in a few areas, some others have arrived at the same >conclusions. >:) And criticism helps to refine ideas. >:) Argument is fun; and good for the game, in the long run. Richard Hills minimally but publicly supports: I mostly do not support Nigel's proposals because for most I believe Nigel's adjective "constructive" is begging the question, petitio principii. I do, however, support Nigel's long and partially successful campaign to make EBU Orange Book regulations say what they mean, and for EBU Orange Book regulations to be consistently enforced. Plus I have annoyed a few of the EBU powers-that-be by my colonial convict arrogance in daring to intervene in support of Nigel's proposal that an unLawful EBU Orange Book regulation, which inhibited full disclosure, should be abolished -- which it now has been. Furthermore, Nigel and I are of one mind in warning: "Beware of the leopard!" Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 9 02:05:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:05:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Oh! Calcutta! [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <3DCB032563B74643B20EC6410944789F@JOHN> Message-ID: Jawaharlal Nehru (1889-1964): "I shall be the last Englishman to rule in India." Richard Hills: [big snip] >>It gets worse. The draw for the semi-final knockout >>matches was *pre-set*. When the trial was actually held, >>after three quarters of the quarter-finals Team 1 had a big >>lead over Team 6. Team 1 examined the results after three >>quarters in the other quarter-finals, and noted that its >>likely semi-final opponent had a carry-forward advantage >>against Team 1. However, if Team 1 lost its quarter-final, >>then it would play a different team in its semi-final, and >>against that different team it would be Team 1 with the >>carry-forward advantage. >> >>Therefore, Team 1 approached the Director in charge, and >>requested permission to concede its quarter-final match >>against Team 6, despite Team 1 leading by 80-odd imps. >> >>As Director in charge, how would you rule? John (MadDog) Probst: >There is nothing to rule on. The CoC have their say. John ABF general tournament regulation, clause 12.11.1: It is ABF tournament policy to discourage concessions. Notwithstanding this policy, in teams matches with multiple stanzas, a team may concede to its opponents with one or more stanzas to complete if it considers its chances of winning the match to be negligible. Richard Hills: So since Team 1 was ahead of Team 6 with only 16 boards to play by a mere 80-odd imps, Team 1's chances of winning the match were obviously negligible. Team 1 needed a lead of twice that much, 160-odd imps, for Team 1 to have a non- negligible chance of winning. ABF general tournament regulation, clause 12.11.1: A team shall not concede deliberately to benefit another team or for reasons that are whimsical. Any concession that is deemed unacceptable by the Tournament Sub-Committee shall be regarded as an unauthorised withdrawal and may be subject to the disciplinary provisions of section 3 of these Regulations. Richard Hills: So the Director in charge advised Team 1 that conceding the quarter-final against Team 6 would carry the disciplinary penalty of being forfeited from the next round, the knockout semi-final (although Team 1 could play in the knockout final if three of the four semi-finalists were later fined parallel disciplinary penalties). Faced with this ultimatum, Team 1 duly completed its win against Team 6, then duly played a semi-final with a carry- forward deficit, which it duly lost. But it gets worse. Team 1's semi-final opponents won the grand final, the berth for the Bermuda Bowl. But the second place consolation prize was a berth in the Asia-Pacific Championship. This second prize was arbitrarily awarded to the losing grand finalist, despite Team 1's only loss being to the eventual winner. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From daisy_duck at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 8 02:52:37 2008 From: daisy_duck at btopenworld.com (Stefanie Rohan) Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2008 01:52:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> Message-ID: From: "David Burn" > [5] How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such as > "self-alerting doubles"? Well, you are on the Laws and Ethics Committee, which are considering forcing all of us in the EBU to do just that. I suggest you put a stop to it. Stefanie Rohan London, England From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 9 06:37:55 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:37:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493D790A.6060504@talktalk.net> References: <493D790A.6060504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081209163630.01e10708@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 06:44 AM 9/12/2008, you wrote: >[David Burn] >.. and the task of creating a single default disclosure method based on >such a system more daunting still. > >[Nigel] >What about an ANNOUNCE protocol? as suggested on BLML, some time ago... I announce quite a lot of partner's bids although, AFAIK, it is not countenanced in Australia. But there again, I know that giving UI is not illegal Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 07:29:34 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 17:29:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c9598b$74f7e8a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass": "I'll tell thee everything I can: There's little to relate" [snip of 81 further lines in poem] Maciej Bystry, corresponding critique of pre-Alerts: >.....I would have to spend at least 2 minutes before every >round doing that, almost always pointlessly. I am generally >trying to be helpful etc, but when that doesn't cause my >serious inconvenience. The regulators are to blame when the >opponents are surprised by the meaning..... Richard Hills quibbles: Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Many years ago David Stevenson used the exact same argument to reveal that the English "announce" regulation was obviously superior to the Aussie drover's dog of a "pre-Alert" regulation. My partnership plays a highly complex method of leads and signals, mostly based on Journalist Leads, but with some idiosyncrasies of my own invention. Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking-Glass": "That's the reason the horse has all those anklets round his feet." "But what are they for?" Alice asked in a tone of great curiosity. "To guard against the bites of sharks," the Knight replied. "It's an invention of my own." Richard Hills quibbles: Our partnership would need to run three-and-a-half hours of a seminar with PowerPoint presentations and motivational speeches to fully describe the idiosyncrasies of our methods. But, to ensure that opposing future declarers are not damaged, we simply give this mere 10-second pre-Alert: "We play funny leads and signals, differing depending on whether you declare a suit contract or a notrump contract." This gives a heads-up to an opposing declarer that she should not assume: (a) anything about our leads and signals, and also not assume (b) that the answer to a question will remain the same as the previous answer to an identical question on an earlier deal. Likewise, Maciej could give this heads-up 10-second pre-Alert for his partnership at the start of play, "We play some funny low-level doubles," obviating the need for Maciej to illegally Alert his non- Alertable doubles during the auction. What's the problem? David Burn's hamartia: >>How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such >>as "self-alerting doubles"? Richard Hills, deipnosophist: Yes, the problem is that for the past decade-and-a-half us Aussies have not been playing bridge. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 9 07:39:11 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 17:39:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <001101c9598b$74f7e8a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081209173831.01e10708@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 05:29 PM 9/12/2008, you wrote: >Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass": > >"I'll tell thee everything I can: > There's little to relate" > >[snip of 81 further lines in poem] > >Maciej Bystry, corresponding critique of pre-Alerts: > > >.....I would have to spend at least 2 minutes before every > >round doing that, almost always pointlessly. I am generally > >trying to be helpful etc, but when that doesn't cause my > >serious inconvenience. The regulators are to blame when the > >opponents are surprised by the meaning..... > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Many years ago David >Stevenson used the exact same argument to reveal that the English >"announce" regulation was obviously superior to the Aussie >drover's dog of a "pre-Alert" regulation. > >My partnership plays a highly complex method of leads and signals, >mostly based on Journalist Leads, but with some idiosyncrasies of >my own invention. > >Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking-Glass": > >"That's the reason the horse has all those anklets round his feet." >"But what are they for?" Alice asked in a tone of great curiosity. >"To guard against the bites of sharks," the Knight replied. "It's >an invention of my own." > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >Our partnership would need to run three-and-a-half hours of a >seminar with PowerPoint presentations and motivational speeches to >fully describe the idiosyncrasies of our methods. But, to ensure >that opposing future declarers are not damaged, we simply give this >mere 10-second pre-Alert: > >"We play funny leads and signals, differing depending on whether >you declare a suit contract or a notrump contract." > >This gives a heads-up to an opposing declarer that she should not >assume: > >(a) anything about our leads and signals, and also not assume >(b) that the answer to a question will remain the same as the > previous answer to an identical question on an earlier deal. > >Likewise, Maciej could give this heads-up 10-second pre-Alert for >his partnership at the start of play, "We play some funny low-level >doubles," obviating the need for Maciej to illegally Alert his non- >Alertable doubles during the auction. > >What's the problem? > >David Burn's hamartia: > > >>How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such > >>as "self-alerting doubles"? > >Richard Hills, deipnosophist: > >Yes, the problem is that for the past decade-and-a-half us Aussies >have not been playing bridge. > Correct, you must know my partner, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >Best wishes > >Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments >immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, >sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, >retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons >or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC >respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The >official departmental 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 Tue Dec 9 10:19:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 10:19:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] What to do? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <493E380D.5060500@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> >> Our opponents are relative newbies and I want to do two things: (a) >> provide a good example of ethical behavior (b) make sure they >> understand what has in all likelihood occurred. Are these two >> goals in conflict? >> > > > > Question: The auction was X. My partner bid Y and the opponents > asked what it meant. Here's what I know that might matter: Z. What > should I tell the opponents? > > Generic answer: Z. You just did the best you could to explain what > you know about partner's call to us, so why would you do anything > different to explain it to them? > AG : because Colin's "relative newbies" won't understand what all this meant. Of course, explaining 'it's quite probable that he has a 1-suiter in spades and has forgotten our agreement' would be understandable. You don't need to remind me this isn't allowed. We discussed it in length. But I think that's what Colin feared when he wondered whether there was a conflict between ethics and clarity. Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 9 12:05:08 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:05:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. Many years ago David > Stevenson used the exact same argument to reveal that the English > "announce" regulation was obviously superior to the Aussie > drover's dog of a "pre-Alert" regulation. I don't know what is superior and I'm not against pre-alerts. But for me the function of pre-alert should be - warning against something to which the opponents will probably need to prepare before the play commences. My doubles do not fall into this category. > Likewise, Maciej could give this heads-up 10-second pre-Alert for > his partnership at the start of play, "We play some funny low-level > doubles," obviating the need for Maciej to illegally Alert his non- > Alertable doubles during the auction. > > What's the problem? The problem is that such warning will be followed by "aha, what doubles?" and we're back at 2 minutes :-) I thought about "you should ask about our doubles" but that would sometimes result in the above scenario and what's worse - often in the opponents' asking about all our doubles. So I choose the way of operating slightly behind the border of the regulation, as many people in many situations when any regulations are not compliant with common sense. Regards Maciej From sater at xs4all.nl Tue Dec 9 12:49:35 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 12:49:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <00e401c959f4$35b75770$a1260650$@nl> [Maciej] So I choose the way of operating slightly behind the border of the regulation, as many people in many situations when any regulations are not compliant with common sense. [HvS] Same for me, or at least I sometimes do. Against non expert opponents I tend to "alert" a double on a strong notrump(single suiter). With "alert" I mean half taking out the alert card, putting it back and saying "sorry, not allowed to alert" Hans From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 9 13:14:42 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 13:14:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > > So I choose the way of operating slightly behind the border of the > regulation, as many people in many situations when any regulations are not > compliant with common sense. > AG : the fact that non-alert laws aren't in touch with common sense is shown in the following facts : - some pairs have begun devising strange doubles and redoubles that they hope will give problems to their opponents because they won't even imagine *this* double could be something special. - some players have accused some pairs of having the abovementioned intent for some of their doubles and redoubles ; they can't know such-and-such special double has been invented long before the non-alert regulation came in. While, in the dWS debate, it has been decided that UI stemming from explanations isn't as bad as adding to MI, this regulation occasionally creates huge amounts of MI to avoid creating (very uncommon) UI. I know that not alerting when you may not alert isn't purposely giving MI to the opponents ; but the effect is often just that. Who on Earth would protect himself to the extent of asking what 1C (1D) X means ? Yet, some Italians play it as 5+ hearts. And imagining that 1C (1NT = pointed suits) 2C (X) specifically means a constructive raise in one of our suits (spades, as in my favorite system) is nearly impossible. In fact, the targeted UI is the distinction between pure penalty, passable, 'action' and takeout doubles ; the fact that there could be 'other' doubles has been overlooked. Such 'special doubles' will very seldom be misunderstood, so the risk of UI is low ; while the risk of damage to opponents is high. Perhaps the best regulation could be : no alert for penalty, optional or takeout doubles, but alert all doubles that have a specific distributional meaning. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 9 15:06:22 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:06:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2CBF63EA-AED6-4FEF-8FCD-01AEC9ECCB60@starpower.net> On Dec 8, 2008, at 5:27 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Maciej Bystry, one little clarification: > >> One little clarification - in Poland the regulations state that no >> doubles should be alerted (without screens). So indeed, in such >> situations you generally have to ask but you can also count on the >> common sense of many opponents who knowingly omit the regulations >> and alert untypical doubles. I use the same methods as Romanski- >> Puczynski in many situations (e.g. after 1NT-pass-2C-2M) and I >> alert such doubles. Against good players it is not imperative but >> weaker ones may easily be mislead otherwise. As much as I hate to >> say it - sometimes the spirit of the procedure is really more >> important than its letter. > > Richard Hills, one little clarification > > One little clarification - in Australia the regulations state that > no doubles should be Alerted (without screens). As much as I love > to say it - always every jot and tittle of the letter of the Laws > should be obeyed, but with a generous spirit. Before the ACBL introduced announcements, alertable understandings included some methods played by the overwhelming majority of ACBLers (1S-P-1NT forcing, 1NT-P-2D showing hearts). Experienced players reacted by developing their own dual alert structures: "Alert!" for the routine stuff, "Alert! Alert! I really mean it." for treatments their opponents genuinely wouldn't expect. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 9 15:50:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:50:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 In-Reply-To: <2CBF63EA-AED6-4FEF-8FCD-01AEC9ECCB60@starpower.net> References: <2CBF63EA-AED6-4FEF-8FCD-01AEC9ECCB60@starpower.net> Message-ID: <493E85A5.9070600@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 8, 2008, at 5:27 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > >> Maciej Bystry, one little clarification: >> >> >>> One little clarification - in Poland the regulations state that no >>> doubles should be alerted (without screens). So indeed, in such >>> situations you generally have to ask but you can also count on the >>> common sense of many opponents who knowingly omit the regulations >>> and alert untypical doubles. I use the same methods as Romanski- >>> Puczynski in many situations (e.g. after 1NT-pass-2C-2M) and I >>> alert such doubles. Against good players it is not imperative but >>> weaker ones may easily be mislead otherwise. As much as I hate to >>> say it - sometimes the spirit of the procedure is really more >>> important than its letter. >>> >> Richard Hills, one little clarification >> >> One little clarification - in Australia the regulations state that >> no doubles should be Alerted (without screens). As much as I love >> to say it - always every jot and tittle of the letter of the Laws >> should be obeyed, but with a generous spirit. >> > > Before the ACBL introduced announcements, alertable understandings > included some methods played by the overwhelming majority of ACBLers > (1S-P-1NT forcing, 1NT-P-2D showing hearts). Experienced players > reacted by developing their own dual alert structures: "Alert!" for > the routine stuff, "Alert! Alert! I really mean it." for treatments > their opponents genuinely wouldn't expect. > > Somr make a distinction -apperently well understood- between delicately putting your Alert card on the table and flapping it ostensibly three or four times. You already know I'm interested in bridge player sociology, and I really think that (honest) players' antics at the table are a sign that something's needed. Yes, I think that the practice of 'double alerts' or 'super-alerts' would be good to this game. Pre-alert fills one gap, but it's impossible to mention all low-probability "very* special agreements, of which many partnerships have scores.. Double alerts are most needed for bids whose most common meaning would already be alertable. One frequent case is that of substitude bids in cases when the usual meaning would be alertable, as in 1D-1S-2C-2H = marionnette to 2S (weak with long spades or strong hand to be described), or 1S-2C-2H-3D = strong raise (inversion of the common meanings of 2S and 3D, gaining popularity). As a guide, any time you fear they would dismiss your alert with 'yes, I know' but they actually don't know, that's a 'double alert'. And, to link this with my previous comment : doubles shouldn't be alertable except in the case when they're worth a 'double alert'. Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Dec 9 16:32:11 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 09:32:11 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <009801c9593f$0eb1b9f0$2c152dd0$@nl> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0812090732y58e17edey938bd193ce58363b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM, wrote: > > Hans van Staveren: > > >International universal alert rule: "If you think your opponents > >might otherwise get it wrong, alert" > > Richard Hills: > > ABF exception to universal alert rule: "If the ABF thinks your > partner might otherwise get it wrong (for example, the constant > confusion amongst partners as to whether a double is penalty or > negative), then the ABF defines your ambiguous call as a self- > alerting* call." > > * Self-alerting means that the call _must not_ be alerted but > the opponents may, if they wish, enquire _as if_ the call had > been alerted > I have no idea what this means. It sounds like you are saying that your confusion requires that you change the alert regulations without your opponent's knowledge. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 22:35:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:35:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20081209173831.01e10708@mail.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Law 94 - Cyberspace, the Final Frontier. A. These are the voyages of the Starship Blml. B. Its five-year mission: (a) to explore strange new Lawbooks, (i) to seek out new Grattanese and new ambiguities, (ii) to boldly rule where no Director has ruled before. Walk-in Butler Pairs (imps scored against a datum) Dlr: South Vul: None The bidding went: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- --- 1H Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass (1) Choice of contracts T32 A76 KQ95 AT6 J5 K964 9 T532 JT7642 A8 Q973 KJ8 AQ87 KQJ84 3 542 Opening lead: Jack of diamonds This end position was reached after East had just won the king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead to trick eight. --- --- Q95 AT6 --- 6 --- T T76 8 Q97 KJ8 8 J8 --- 542 Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side winners, how would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 9 23:17:32 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 23:17:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000701c95a4b$ee6df380$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Law 94 - Cyberspace, the Final Frontier. > A. These are the voyages of the Starship Blml. > B. Its five-year mission: > (a) to explore strange new Lawbooks, > (i) to seek out new Grattanese and new ambiguities, > (ii) to boldly rule where no Director has ruled before. > > Walk-in Butler Pairs (imps scored against a datum) > Dlr: South > Vul: None > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4H > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Choice of contracts > > T32 > A76 > KQ95 > AT6 > J5 K964 > 9 T532 > JT7642 A8 > Q973 KJ8 > AQ87 > KQJ84 > 3 > 542 > > Opening lead: Jack of diamonds > > This end position was reached after East had just won the > king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead > to trick eight. > > --- > --- > Q95 > AT6 > --- 6 > --- T > T76 8 > Q97 KJ8 > 8 > J8 > --- > 542 > > Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he > had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds > (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was > uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding > trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus > dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). > > Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side > winners, how would you rule? Here I will assume that the declarer forgot about the trump (that's something to decide for the TD at the table). Then E can play a high club, taken in dummy, DQ, D ruff (E throws a spade) and now declarer plays a spade, ruffed. 2 tricks to EW. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 9 23:58:40 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:58:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0812090732y58e17edey938bd193ce58363b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>ABF exception to universal alert rule: "If the ABF thinks your >>partner might otherwise get it wrong (for example, the constant >>confusion amongst partners as to whether a double is penalty or >>negative), then the ABF defines your ambiguous call as a self- >>alerting* call." >> >>* Self-alerting means that the call _must not_ be alerted but >>the opponents may, if they wish, enquire _as if_ the call had >>been alerted Jerry Fusselman: >I have no idea what this means. Richard Hills: In my youth in the distant land of Tasmania hoi polloi loved using the Gerber convention, and loved bidding 4C naturally, and loved not wasting time on system homework. Therefore, they would resolve the question, "Is partner's 4C Gerber?" at the table, Alerting 4C when they intended to respond aces and not Alerting 4C when they intended to respond naturally. Partner would be alert but not alarmed after immediately discovering that her 4C had been misinterpreted, since the highly timely Alert or non-Alert often permitted a swerve from an impending disaster. Of course hoi polloi were infracting Law 16 by using Alerts to build their system (or vary their chameleon intent), but the ABF decided that rather than wearing out the Director with numerous Law 16 rulings they would impose a mandatory regulation which prohibited Alerts of calls above 3NT, plus prohibit Alerts of other system building / chameleon intent calls: (x) Doubles (negative or penalty?) (y) Redoubles (SOS or strength-showing?) (z) Cue bids (natural or artificial?) To prevent opponents being disadvantaged by MI, the ABF carefully defined these four types of non-Alertable calls as self-Alerting. This has meant that enquiries about these self-Alerting calls had a lesser Law 16 risk for the enquirer due to them being deemed equivalent to unusual Alertable calls rather than them being deemed equivalent to usual un-Alertable calls. This self-Alerting call concept has worked well in Australia since it was introduced a decade-and-a-half ago. A few tweaks have incrementally improved it over the years: (p) initially opening pre-empts and jump overcalls were self- Alerting, but the ABF realised they had underestimated the creativity of Aussies (e.g. transfer preempts), so returned that category of call to normal non-Alerts and unusual Alerts, and (q) pre-Alerts were eventually realised to be a necessary complement to self-Alerts, so that opponents were not at a disadvantage when a pair played highly unusual methods, and (r) the declaring side was required to volunteer post-Alerts of any nuances in their auction (especially nuanced self-Alerting calls). Law 80B2(f): "The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." What to do if a Regulating Authority's disclosure regulations are in conflict with Law 40B4, due to the regs mandating some crucial concealed partnership understandings? See next post. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Dec 10 01:30:43 2008 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 18:30:43 -0600 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0812090732y58e17edey938bd193ce58363b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0812091630g4cebe54amb5a4aa2754c04d0f@mail.gmail.com> > Richard Hills: > > (r) the declaring side was required to volunteer post-Alerts of > any nuances in their auction (especially nuanced self-Alerting > calls). What does "required to volunteer" mean? Is more like "required to state" or "encouraged to volunteer?" From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 02:02:51 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 02:02:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000701c95a63$0712bb20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > Of course hoi polloi were infracting Law 16 by using Alerts to > build their system (or vary their chameleon intent), but the ABF > decided that rather than wearing out the Director with numerous > Law 16 rulings they would impose a mandatory regulation which > prohibited Alerts of calls above 3NT, plus prohibit Alerts of > other system building / chameleon intent calls: > > (x) Doubles (negative or penalty?) > (y) Redoubles (SOS or strength-showing?) > (z) Cue bids (natural or artificial?) > > To prevent opponents being disadvantaged by MI, the ABF carefully > defined these four types of non-Alertable calls as self-Alerting. > > This has meant that enquiries about these self-Alerting calls had > a lesser Law 16 risk for the enquirer due to them being deemed > equivalent to unusual Alertable calls rather than them being > deemed equivalent to usual un-Alertable calls. In Poland calls above 3NT and doubles shouldn't be alerted, although "prohibition" is too strong word. Our policy merely states that such alerts *could* be treated as a source of UI. It seems that regulators deliberately left a gap for common sense. The concept of self-Alerting calls is in my opinion a bit shaky. Take an usual auction: 1D-1S-3S-4C-(?) In my system double of the call showing shortness suggests values in higher of the remaining suits (in this case double would entice heart lead, pass would warn against that). But double of the call showing values or undefined (e.g. simple cuebids) suggests lead in the suit shown by the doubled call. So to make any decision I have to ask for the meaning of 4C. All right, self-Alerting (in Australia, in Poland there is no such rule), fine, but if the answer is "normal cuebid" and I pass, my partner knows that I have something in hearts - I don't want to double for a club lead and having nothing in hearts (and in clubs) I wouldn't bother to ask (regardless of an answer I was going to pass). Now tell me, what does "a lesser Law 16 risk" mean? Would my pair end ruled against if my partner chooses a heart lead in spite of having a logical alternative? If the answer is "no", then your rules give the questioners a free UI ride. If the answer is "yes", then your rules often put the questioners in a lose-lose position. But that is not an end of this "simple" case. Now let's say that I make my double (after obtaining a response that 4C shows shortness). Experienced players would be aware that they should ask about its meaning. But many average players would mistakenly assume that it simply shows clubs (I know it from my table experience). So they will be in fact mislead (e.g. opening bidder will count his CK as a trick or won't be afraid of a heart lead having QJx or something similar). Yes, you may say that it is partially their fault (they could have asked) but do we really want to encourage the players to ask about *all* doubles to protect themselves from those rare situations when it would really matter? And what's worse - responder's answer will be in fact an equivalent of an (absent) alert. Isn't it better to allow alerting 4C as showing (exactly) shortness and double showing something different than clubs? We won't be able to eradicate UI from F2F bridge. Probably in future top events will be played using computer terminals, but the rest of bridge will still be played as it is now (although some improvements in the means of disclosure may be possible). In my strong opinion the best way to fight UI usage is to educate the players, severely punish conscious infractors, give at most "equity MINUS (capitals purposeful)" to the rest. Yes, prevention is also fine, but only unless it conflicts with other important aspects of bridge. And the motivation like "ABF decided that rather than wearing out the Director with numerous Law 16 rulings" is for me outrageous. Finally, I've read many of your past emails and I have an impression that you don't share Nigel's view of the priorities of the laws. You are a follower of the "equity" trend, you support "let the punishment fit the crime", you (rationally) claim that it's mindless to write such laws which would severely punish many accidental offenders to catch 1% of deliberate infractors. So consequently you shouldn't support ABF regulation which main purpose is to stop a distinctive minority of cheaters from using alerts to clarify the auction for each one, at the cost of many innocents who are put in legally difficult positions and often do not have any reasonable choice to make. So I don't want to say that following statement > This self-Alerting call concept has worked well in Australia > since it was introduced a decade-and-a-half ago. is not true (you certainly know the situation in Australia better than me), but I'm honestly in serious doubt. In Poland the whole system works only because many players disobey our policy and alert some calls above 3NT (e.g. 1S-4H - in Poland that shouldn't be alerted, but is played in three different ways - splinter (most frequent), HCP raise to 4S (quite frequent, popularity raises), natural (rare), so most players alert HCP raise to help the opponents) and doubles (e.g. from David's example, from my example, anti-doubles, doubles as transfers etc). Maybe the situation is similar in your country? Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 10 02:51:23 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:51:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0812091630g4cebe54amb5a4aa2754c04d0f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills, oxymoronic: >>(r) the declaring side was required to volunteer post-Alerts >>of any nuances in their auction (especially nuanced self- >>Alerting calls). Jerry Fusselman quibbled: >What does "required to volunteer" mean? Is more like >"required to state" or "encouraged to volunteer?" Richard Hills counter-quibbles: "Required to _be a_ volunteer" would be an oxymoron, but the context of "required to volunteer" meant that the meaning was "required to proffer a statement". But is the purpose of this list sesquipedalian oxymorons of chrestomathic mataeotechny? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 10 04:17:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:17:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 80B2(f): "The Tournament Organizer?s powers and duties include: to announce regulations supplementary to, but not in conflict with, these Laws." Richard Hills: What to do if a Regulating Authority's disclosure regulations are in conflict with Law 40B4, due to the regs mandating some crucial concealed partnership understandings? Maciej Bystry and Hans van Staveren suggest that all players should simply disobey an unLawful regulation which is unfair to their opponents. An interesting (but non-binding to non-EBU players) precedent was set by a 2004 Appeal to the EBU National Authority. Details available in the 2004 EBU Appeals Casebook, case 3. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * * * Appeal to the National Authority: The L&E considered an appeal to the National Authority from the 2004 Brighton Summer Congress. The appellant was heard in person. The appeal concerned the meaning, and the legality, of the regulations in the Orange Book which restrict the distributions on which natural 1NT openings are permitted to the following:- At Level 2:- * balanced hands (4-3-3-3, 4-4-3-2 and 5-3-3-2 shapes) * semi-balanced hands (5-4-2-2 and 6-3-2-2 shapes) At Levels 3 and 4:- * balanced or semi-balanced hands (as above) * 4-4-4-1 hands (with a singleton of any rank) * 5-4-3-1 hands (with a singleton honour only) The L&E decided:- * that the appeal raised a question of principle and that the deposit would therefore be returned; * that the regulations are not ambiguous: they do prohibit the opening of 1NT by agreement on 5-4-3-1 hands with a low singleton; * that the regulations are legal because:- * the L&E has the right to regulate conventions under [the 1997] Law 40D; * the wording of the definition of convention in the [1997] Laws, and in particular the use of the words "willingness to play", provides sufficient latitude that an opening bid of 1NT, made by agreement on a hand which is neither balanced nor semi-balanced, may be judged to fall within the [1997] definition of a conventional call; and * the L&E has so judged; * the appeal would therefore be dismissed. The L&E decided that the implications of this appeal should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting, to allow all L&E members to contribute to the discussion. In particular the following propositions should be discussed:- [RH emphasis] |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv * that players entering events submit themselves to the published regulations, and should be expected to comply with them even though there may be doubt as to their legality; ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| * that players seeking to challenge regulations should do so by approaching the L&E via correspondence, rather than via the appeals process; and * that the L&E should encourage such approaches in cases of difficulty. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 10 05:58:45 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:58:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c95a4b$ee6df380$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Richard Hills petitio principii: >>Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side >>winners, how would you rule? Maciej Bystry: >Here I will assume that the declarer forgot about the trump >(that's something to decide for the TD at the table). Then E >can play a high club, taken in dummy, DQ, D ruff (E throws a >spade) and now declarer plays a spade, ruffed. 2 tricks to EW. Law 70C - There Is an Outstanding Trump When a trump remains in one of the opponents' hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: 1. claimer made no statement about that trump, and 2. it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand, and 3. a trick could be lost to that trump by any normal* play. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Richard Hills: Following reasoning identical to that of Maciej, the Director in charge ruled -50 instead of +420. Now cultural issues came into play. Some nations and players strictly apply the written word of Law 70C. Other nations and players take a much softer line on Law 70C, deeming it hardly ever relevant. Unfortunately declarer had a different cultural background to East-West, so after the Director in charge had left the table declarer uttered some pithy comments about sportsmanship, thereby infracting The Prime Directive: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 10 06:45:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:45:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 2004 EBU Law and Ethics Committee, 2004 EBU National Authority sub-committee: * that players entering events submit themselves to the published regulations, and should be expected to comply with them even though there may be doubt as to their legality; 2008 David Burn, EBU Law and Ethics solivagant: >I am aware of a strongly-held view within our Laws and Ethics >Committee to the effect that the purpose of alerting is to >comply with the regulations, and not necessarily to tell the >opponents anything useful. Richard Hills: The ultimate purpose (of life, the universe and everything) is for Regulating Authorities to _design_ effective disclosure regulations which maximise the opportunities for opponents to discover many useful things about one's system. _If_ and when those effective disclosure regulations are designed, _then_ intentional non-compliance with those regs is a Law 72B1 "must not" infraction. If, however, a Regulating Authority may have designed a reg so ineffective that that reg may be unLawful, who or what has the power to determine whether or not this may or may not be so? Law 10A and the Law 81C preface definitely say that a player lacks this power, so the "do your own thing" recommendations of Maciej Bystry and Hans van Staveren are ultra vires. But does the Director in charge have the power to rule that a regulation of the Tournament Organizer and/or Regulating Authority is unLawful? Law 81B - The Director - Restrictions and Responsibilities 1. The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer. 2. The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws. Richard Hills: It seems to me that "bound by ... supplementary regulations" has the implied adjective "Lawful" before "supplementary". There have been several cases on record where the Tournament Organizer has promulgated two paradoxically contradictory regulations, and the Director in charge has therefore used her Law 81B1 power to "remedy" by repealing one of those two regulations. What's the problem? David Burn: >...starts pontificating... Ex cathedra, Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 10 10:38:49 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:38:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be> I have no intention of meddling in the alerting doubles debate, but I would like to show you something that is written here (and it's even by a dWs partizan). Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > > While, in the dWS debate, it has been decided that UI stemming from > explanations isn't as bad as adding to MI, this regulation occasionally > creates huge amounts of MI to avoid creating (very uncommon) UI. "It has been decided". First of all, this has been "decided" by the WBFLC in a very unfortunate matter, but let's pass on that. But most importantly, nothing of the sort has been decided - quite the reverse! Read L20F5a and tell me if the WBF find UI better or worse than MI. Here you have a player, in full knowledge of the system he is playing, hearing his partner misexplain (=MI), and having the opportunity to correct this (= no more MI), while telling partner something he did not know (= UI), and what do the WBF say about it? DON'T do that! By writing L20F5a (long ago under a different number), the WBF have decided that MI is to be preferred over UI. Exactly the opposite of what is said above. Just needed to be said. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 10 10:42:12 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:42:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <493F8EF4.9000108@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > But is the purpose of this list sesquipedalian oxymorons of > chrestomathic mataeotechny? > Of course it is! Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 10 11:00:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:00:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <493F933C.50307@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I have no intention of meddling in the alerting doubles debate, but I > would like to show you something that is written here (and it's even by > a dWs partizan). > > Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> While, in the dWS debate, it has been decided that UI stemming from >> explanations isn't as bad as adding to MI, this regulation occasionally >> creates huge amounts of MI to avoid creating (very uncommon) UI. >> > > > "It has been decided". > > First of all, this has been "decided" by the WBFLC in a very unfortunate > matter, but let's pass on that. > > But most importantly, nothing of the sort has been decided - quite the > reverse! > Apparently there has been a very explicit notice about what to do in this case. You might say this isn't a "decision", but that's difficult tu agree with. In short, a wrong decision is a decision nevertheless. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 10 11:02:22 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:02:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I polled rec.games.bridge on the problem: You incorrectly bid 4NT for the minors, partner wakes you up with his correct explanation that it is Blackwood, and you know are asked to explain partner's 5D bid. The results fit with my poll of blml, where only one member retained the position that it should be explained as preference for diamonds. At rec.games.bridge, I counted 9 votes for explaining it as Blackwood, 1 vote for explaining it as a preference for the diamonds, and 2 votes for explaining both. The early votes were all for Blackwood; that probably inhibited more Blackwood votes and encourage more minority opinions. Does this link work? http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/d5654c1b39b8ce44/c750965ade986867?hl=en& I also challenged them to explain how the laws could come to this conclusion (which turned out to be a mistake). By the end I lost faith. If you get by L16, you still have the backup UI Law, L73C: "When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from......explanation......, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." To my calculations, once you consider rectification and redress, there is advantage to giving the Blackwood response explanation. You avoid giving partner the UI that you have misunderstood the auction, which makes it easier for partner to select a bid that will work. You avoid giving the opponents a mistaken explanation which might lead to later rectification. You avoid telling the opponents that you have misbid and you are now having a three-wheeled auction. Is there some way that L73C can be avoided? The only other thing I can see is to argue that one's L20/75 obligations override L73C. But I can't see any particular reason to interpret the laws this way. From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 12:36:03 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 12:36:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002901c95abb$7c14ec60$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > > The ultimate purpose (of life, the universe and everything) is > for Regulating Authorities to _design_ effective disclosure > regulations which maximise the opportunities for opponents to > discover many useful things about one's system. > > _If_ and when those effective disclosure regulations are > designed, _then_ intentional non-compliance with those regs is > a Law 72B1 "must not" infraction. > > If, however, a Regulating Authority may have designed a reg so > ineffective that that reg may be unLawful, who or what has the > power to determine whether or not this may or may not be so? > > Law 10A and the Law 81C preface definitely say that a player > lacks this power, so the "do your own thing" recommendations > of Maciej Bystry and Hans van Staveren are ultra vires. I don't know Dutch regulations but our say nothing like "you mustn't alert doubles etc", instead they say "doubles etc are not to be alerted" and there is a point 7) (the last one in the policy) which says "alerting not compliant with the rules mentioned above *may* be treated as a source of UI". I know from the interpretations and commentaries of people who wrote the alert policy that the main (not written explicitly) rule is "alert everything that can be a surprise for your opponents" and "it is never an infraction per se to alert more than you are required by the policy, although you may risk UI restrictions (hence point 7)". Our system and alert policy was written in 2000 (with small changes in 2002) and the regulators are not prone to correct it. In their opinion the practice showed that it is working well, that most players understand its spirit and they always can count on the interpretations in cases of doubt. Although the letter of alert regulations is quite consistent, the letter of system policy is ludicrous. It contains contradictions (e.g. in one place it is written that CCs are mandatory, in the other that they are not, but that without possesing them you may only play "green" systems), unclear messages, logical errors. Well known to you Konrad Ciborowski appealed to our regulators and pointed to them those flaws but his efforts remained ineffective. They simply state - "TDs know what to do, players generally know what to do, WTP?". So don't be surprised that I deliberately operate outside the border of the letter of the regulations if that is something which is in fact expected by the regulators. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 10 13:09:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:09:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002901c95abb$7c14ec60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002901c95abb$7c14ec60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493FB165.9050603@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > I know from the interpretations and commentaries of people who wrote the > alert policy that the main (not written explicitly) rule is "alert > everything that can be a surprise for your opponents" and "it is never an > infraction per se to alert more than you are required by the policy, > although you may risk UI restrictions (hence point 7)". > AG : that's not a bad way to solve the problem, at first sight, but I'm afraid it may create subtle and undetectable UI problems, when you decide not to alert a 'special' double ; partner might be able to infer that you don't want to risk UI, ilmplying that you're not 100% sure you share a precise agreement, which is in itself UI. A bit the same problem as with enquiring about a revoke, when you don't do it systematically. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 10 13:35:14 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:35:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493F933C.50307@ulb.ac.be> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be> <493F933C.50307@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <493FB782.5030000@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> I have no intention of meddling in the alerting doubles debate, but I >> would like to show you something that is written here (and it's even by >> a dWs partizan). >> >> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >> >>> While, in the dWS debate, it has been decided that UI stemming from >>> explanations isn't as bad as adding to MI, this regulation occasionally >>> creates huge amounts of MI to avoid creating (very uncommon) UI. >>> >> >> "It has been decided". >> >> First of all, this has been "decided" by the WBFLC in a very unfortunate >> matter, but let's pass on that. >> >> But most importantly, nothing of the sort has been decided - quite the >> reverse! >> > Apparently there has been a very explicit notice about what to do in > this case. > You might say this isn't a "decision", but that's difficult tu agree with. > In short, a wrong decision is a decision nevertheless. > No Alain, that "decision" is about the dws case. I am talking about the more general case, which is so well engrained into everyone's thinking that you fail to see it as a "decision" by the WBF. When able to correct partner's misexplanation, the WBF have decided (very long ago, but confirmed many times since) that MI is to be preferred over UI. It is precisely because the recent "decision" is so totally opposite to the very old "decision" that I am so adamant that the WBF are being gravely mistaken in their second decision (or in not rescinding their first one). Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 13:47:10 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:47:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl><493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003301c95ac5$6b2df180$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > By writing L20F5a (long ago under a different number), the WBF have > decided that MI is to be preferred over UI. In my opinion such decisions have historical background. In the distant past UI was widely used and nobody saw that as anything bad (even nowadays I know some older players for whom "body play" is normal modus operandi and they are genuinely surprised that such behavior is strongly forbidden). Later, after the bridge authorities realized the importance of avoiding UI usage, they had to introduce strong countermeasures, anty-UI rulings wouldn't be enough in the contemporary state of public awareness and general TD level. So they mostly prefered prevention, forbidding many actions which could result in UI transmition. Contrary to the UI, MI was not a problem in the past. The number of untypical systems was very small, the concept of full disclosure was crawling on all fours, the main thrust was to hide information (e.g. by psychic strategies). Later the situation changed, the disclosure became more and more important, there appeared many artificial systems and the authorities introduced the appropriate laws. Nowadays the UI restrictions and the MI restrictions are clashing, which results in difficult decisions to make for the lawmakers. In some places they prefer MI, in some UI to "win the battle". Look at the classic different approach - in England the regulators decided that there were too many problems with UI transmition caused by unnecessary questions and they strongly advise the players to ask only if it is really needed to make a bidding decision, in ACBL the regulators encourage the players to consistently ask for an explanations of alerted calls (even if not germane to the bidding decision) and place emphasis on the free, full disclosure. The other RAs have their own, often different policies (read my discussion with Richard). To sum it up, I don't agree with you that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI (and I don't agree with the opposite). They know that they have to find the best compromise and in different situations different priorities prevail. They accept that for the auction/board period accidental MI may survive to stop additional UI, but they don't accept *deliberate* creating of MI. They give the nearly unconditional right to ask questions but they warn that the questioning may create UI for the partner and restrict his options. As always, we don't operate on black or white, but on different shades of grey. As to our personal ideas - you consider UI worse, I consider MI worse. That's why we will never agree in the evaluation of the concepts like the dWS. Creation of UI and MI is inevitable. UI is inherent in the F2F bridge and nobody has an absolute memory to always remember his agreements, especially pick-up partnerships and social players will create tons of MI. But the important point is that the mere fact of creating UI does not make harm to the opponents. Only *usage of UI* is harmful. And that is something which can be cured by education. Yes, there will always be cheats who will abuse UI deliberately, no, we shouldn't write the laws which objective is to catch the cheats at the cost of all the innocents. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 13:51:59 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:51:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002901c95abb$7c14ec60$15844c59@chello.pl> <493FB165.9050603@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003701c95ac6$17269a00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Bystry a ?crit : > I know from the interpretations and commentaries of people who wrote the > alert policy that the main (not written explicitly) rule is "alert > everything that can be a surprise for your opponents" and "it is never an > infraction per se to alert more than you are required by the policy, > although you may risk UI restrictions (hence point 7)". > AG : that's not a bad way to solve the problem, at first sight, but I'm afraid it may create subtle and undetectable UI problems, when you decide not to alert a 'special' double ; partner might be able to infer that you don't want to risk UI, ilmplying that you're not 100% sure you share a precise agreement, which is in itself UI. A bit the same problem as with enquiring about a revoke, when you don't do it systematically. MB: You are right, but I don't see it as a big problem. Ethical players will try not to use this UI (anyway most of the time it won't have any impact on the players' decisions). The players of dubious ethics? I don't think that they will ever alert untypical doubles. They don't have to and it is profitable for them to leave their opponents in the dark. Regards Maciej From torsten.astrand at telia.com Sat Dec 6 17:25:36 2008 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:25:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? Message-ID: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> South K None vul K J 8 A 9 8 6 5 4 K 4 2 A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 7 2 5 3 K Q T 3 J 7 2 A 8 6 Q 7 3 Q 6 3 A Q T 9 6 4 - J T 9 5 West North East South 2D Pass 2S Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South's 3H came after a long hesitation. North's raise to game closed the auction. TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to the fact that 2[ was not alerted, South's pause before 3H and North's decision to raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W's questioning. After the play TD was again called to the table asked for a ruling. It's not clear from TD's investigations what other options South has when having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest choice. TD considered that South's failure to alert and the slow 3H-bid strongly suggests raise with the North hand - it's possible that South had misunderstood the 2S-bid. TD's ruling was 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. N/S appealed the ruling. During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn't alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the system. The AC upheld TD's decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic's and Disciplinary Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. What is your opinion about this case? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081206/1aaa99d5/attachment-0001.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 10 15:01:42 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 09:01:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: On Dec 6, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Torsten ?strand wrote: > South K > None vul K J 8 > A 9 8 6 5 4 > K 4 2 > A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 > 7 2 5 3 > K Q T 3 J 7 2 > A 8 6 Q 7 3 > Q 6 3 > A Q T 9 6 4 > ? > J T 9 5 > > West North East South > 2D > Pass 2S Pass 3H > Pass 4H Pass Pass > Pass > > 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, > 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South?s 3H > came after a long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the > auction. > > TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to > the fact that 2[ was not alerted, South?s pause before 3H and > North?s decision to raise. Already at this point North was upset > about E/W?s questioning. After the play TD was again called to the > table asked for a ruling. > > It?s not clear from TD?s investigations what other options South > has when having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the > weakest choice. TD considered that South?s failure to alert and the > slow 3H-bid strongly suggests raise with the North hand ? it?s > possible that South had misunderstood the 2S-bid. TD?s ruling was > 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > N/S appealed the ruling. > > During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw > nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought > for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his > partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot > the system. > > The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > > Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary > Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. > > What is your opinion about this case? I agree with the TD's and AC's decision. I hope that E-W are prepared to offer some significant evidence to support their accusation of cheating against N-S. If they are convening an Ethics & Discipline Committee based on nothing more than the evidence from this particular incident, it is they, not N-S, who ought to be disciplined. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 10 15:55:31 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:55:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <000a01c95ad7$59aba760$0d02f620$@no> On Behalf Of Torsten ?strand South K None vul K J 8 A 9 8 6 5 4 K 4 2 A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 7 2 5 3 K Q T 3 J 7 2 A 8 6 Q 7 3 Q 6 3 A Q T 9 6 4 ? J T 9 5 West North East South 2D Pass 2S Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South?s 3H came after a long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the auction. TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to the fact that 2[ was not alerted, South?s pause before 3H and North?s decision to raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W?s questioning. After the play TD was again called to the table asked for a ruling. It?s not clear from TD?s investigations what other options South has when having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest choice. TD considered that South?s failure to alert and the slow 3H-bid strongly suggests raise with the North hand ? it?s possible that South had misunderstood the 2S-bid. TD?s ruling was 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. N/S appealed the ruling. During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the system. The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. What is your opinion about this case? Sven: First of all: 2S is NOT just invitational (against a weak-2 in hearts), it is AT LEAST invitational. According to standard multi South will bid 3 hearts with a "weak" weak-2 in hearts, pass with a weak-2 in spades and bid 2NT with the strong 2NT hand. Any other bid will show a "strong" weak-2 in hearts. Alternative bids for South in the situation above could be (provided he considers his hand "strong"): 3C - showing a side suit, 4D - cue bid or 4H for play. His hesitation can only suggest that he considered a stronger bid than 3H. (I don't leave much importance to the missing alert of the 2S bid; this bid was an artificial response to an artificial call and my experience is that alerts of such calls are frequently forgotten without anybody worrying.) North has a fair hand, but with a minimum in South I don't consider North's hand sufficient to go to game. The hesitation by South completely changes this, so I agree with both the Director and the AC. But from there on it is a long way to accusing N/S of cheating, what should be the substance of the cheat? The AC apparently has said what should be said. My "hope" is that the Disciplinary Committee should rebuke E/W for a complaint without merit. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 10 16:18:23 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:18:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003301c95ac5$6b2df180$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl><493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be> <003301c95ac5$6b2df180$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <493FDDBF.8080507@skynet.be> Maciej, you are guilty of one thing: hineininterpretieren. You want a particular outcome, so you interpret the other things to suit that outcome. Let me elaborate within your text: Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> By writing L20F5a (long ago under a different number), the WBF have >> decided that MI is to be preferred over UI. > > In my opinion such decisions have historical background. Of course they have, so? > In the distant past > UI was widely used and nobody saw that as anything bad (even nowadays I know > some older players for whom "body play" is normal modus operandi and they > are genuinely surprised that such behavior is strongly forbidden). Later, > after the bridge authorities realized the importance of avoiding UI usage, > they had to introduce strong countermeasures, anty-UI rulings wouldn't be > enough in the contemporary state of public awareness and general TD level. > So they mostly prefered prevention, forbidding many actions which could > result in UI transmition. > Which is why they changed nothing in 1987, 1997, 2007? > Contrary to the UI, MI was not a problem in the past. Well, they did write a law about it. > The number of > untypical systems was very small, the concept of full disclosure was > crawling on all fours, the main thrust was to hide information (e.g. by > psychic strategies). Later the situation changed, the disclosure became more > and more important, there appeared many artificial systems and the > authorities introduced the appropriate laws. > > Nowadays the UI restrictions and the MI restrictions are clashing, Wrong! They were clashing when the predecessor to L20F5a was written. Contrary to dws cases, such happenings are very common. They always have been very common. The only place where UI restrictions and MI are nowadays clashing is among directors discussing on blml. The ordinary player does not realise that they are clashing, until he comes up to a problem of this sort. > which > results in difficult decisions to make for the lawmakers. In some places > they prefer MI, in some UI to "win the battle". What places? What plural? There are only two places where there is a clash: L20F5a and dws. It is silly to believe that these places are so different that they require a totally different solution to "win the battle". Name me one good reason why the battle should be won by different sides. You yourself are in favour of the battle being won by the MI laws in both places - so you cannot give a good reason why there should be a _difference_. The two cases are really very similar, with the only difference being the misexplanation of a part of system (coincidentally giving a correct explanation of the player's intent).. > Look at the classic > different approach - in England the regulators decided that there were too > many problems with UI transmition caused by unnecessary questions and they > strongly advise the players to ask only if it is really needed to make a > bidding decision, in ACBL the regulators encourage the players to > consistently ask for an explanations of alerted calls (even if not germane > to the bidding decision) and place emphasis on the free, full disclosure. > The other RAs have their own, often different policies (read my discussion > with Richard). > But none of these are differences with regards to MI. There are indeed different levels of tolerance for UI sending. > To sum it up, I don't agree with you that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI (and > I don't agree with the opposite). They know that they have to find the best > compromise and in different situations different priorities prevail. They > accept that for the auction/board period accidental MI may survive to stop > additional UI, but they don't accept *deliberate* creating of MI. They give > the nearly unconditional right to ask questions but they warn that the > questioning may create UI for the partner and restrict his options. As > always, we don't operate on black or white, but on different shades of grey. > > As to our personal ideas - you consider UI worse, I consider MI worse. > That's why we will never agree in the evaluation of the concepts like the > dWS. > That is true, but that was not part of the discussion here. > Creation of UI and MI is inevitable. UI is inherent in the F2F bridge and > nobody has an absolute memory to always remember his agreements, especially > pick-up partnerships and social players will create tons of MI. But the > important point is that the mere fact of creating UI does not make harm to > the opponents. Only *usage of UI* is harmful. And that is something which > can be cured by education. Yes, there will always be cheats who will abuse > UI deliberately, no, we shouldn't write the laws which objective is to catch > the cheats at the cost of all the innocents. > >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 10 16:26:45 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:26:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <493FDFB5.8030508@skynet.be> Torsten ?strand wrote: > > > West North East South > > 2D > > Pass 2S Pass 3H > > Pass 4H Pass Pass > > Pass > > > > 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, which is what South has, 2S > invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) which is what North has, and South?s 3H came > after a long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the auction. > > > > TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to > the fact that 2[ was not alerted, South?s pause before 3H and North?s > decision to raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W?s > questioning. After the play TD was again called to the table asked > for a ruling. > > > > It?s not clear from TD?s investigations what other options South has > when having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest > choice. TD considered that South?s failure to alert and the slow > 3H-bid strongly suggests raise with the North hand ? it?s possible > that South had misunderstood the 2S-bid. TD?s ruling was 3H South > making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > I can understand the ruling. > N/S appealed the ruling. > > I can understand that as well. > > During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw > nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought > for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his > partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the > system. > Strange argument. Exactly the reason why the score should be changed. South may have forgotten to raise to 4H himself, either scared that North had forgotten the system, or having forgotten it himself. In either case, he may still have a 4H acceptance which he did not dare to make. > > > The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > Probably North's argument overshadowed their decision on whether pass was still a LA. If North cannot point to the relevant cards in his hand that make passing opposite a minimum opener be the losing option, then the AC should not go looking for those arguments. > > > Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary > Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. > > I think that is going a bit far. There is no reason to obscure the arguments in order to gain a third option, the semi-demi-raise. As to North's strange argument, this points to ignorance, not cheating. A severe PP for ignorance of the laws, or an ethics course would be possible though. > > *What is your opinion about this case?* > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 10 17:18:11 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 17:18:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > On Dec 6, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Torsten ?strand wrote: > > >> South K >> None vul K J 8 >> A 9 8 6 5 4 >> K 4 2 >> A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 >> 7 2 5 3 >> K Q T 3 J 7 2 >> A 8 6 Q 7 3 >> Q 6 3 >> A Q T 9 6 4 >> ? >> J T 9 5 >> >> West North East South >> 2D >> Pass 2S Pass 3H >> Pass 4H Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, >> 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South?s 3H >> came after a long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the >> auction. >> >> >> >> During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw >> nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought >> for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that *since his >> partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot >> the system.* >> >> The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. >> >> Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary >> Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. >> >> What is your opinion about this case? >> > > I agree with the TD's and AC's decision. > > I hope that E-W are prepared to offer some significant evidence to > support their accusation of cheating against N-S. If they are > convening an Ethics & Discipline Committee based on nothing more than > the evidence from this particular incident, it is they, not N-S, who > ought to be disciplined. > AG : there is an obvious piece of evidence : North's voluntary use of UI, that he was silly enough to admit (I put it in bold) I think it is enough to launch a disciplinary meeting, if NS aren't beginners. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 10 17:31:12 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:31:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: Message-ID: <00a101c95ae4$cfd4e890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2008 10:02 AM Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? >I polled rec.games.bridge on the problem: You incorrectly bid 4NT for the > minors, partner wakes you up with his correct explanation that it is > Blackwood, and you know are asked to explain partner's 5D bid. > > The results fit with my poll of blml, where only one member retained the > position that it should be explained as preference for diamonds. At > rec.games.bridge, I counted 9 votes for explaining it as Blackwood, 1 vote > for explaining it as a preference for the diamonds, and 2 votes for > explaining both. The early votes were all for Blackwood; that probably > inhibited more Blackwood votes and encourage more minority opinions. > > Does this link work? > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.bridge/browse_thread/thread/d5654c1b39b8ce44/c750965ade986867?hl=en& > > > I also challenged them to explain how the laws could come to this > conclusion (which turned out to be a mistake). By the end I lost faith. If > you get by L16, you still have the backup UI Law, L73C: "When a player has > available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as > from......explanation......, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage > from that unauthorized information." > > To my calculations, once you consider rectification and redress, there is > advantage to giving the Blackwood response explanation. You avoid giving > partner the UI that you have misunderstood the auction, which makes it > easier for partner to select a bid that will work. You avoid giving the > opponents a mistaken explanation which might lead to later rectification. > You avoid telling the opponents that you have misbid and you are now > having a three-wheeled auction. > > Is there some way that L73C can be avoided? > > The only other thing I can see is to argue that one's L20/75 obligations > override L73C. But I can't see any particular reason to interpret the laws > this way. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 10 18:01:29 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:01:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Eric Landau a ?crit : > > On Dec 6, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Torsten ?strand wrote: > > > > > >> South K > >> None vul K J 8 > >> A 9 8 6 5 4 > >> K 4 2 > >> A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 > >> 7 2 5 3 > >> K Q T 3 J 7 2 > >> A 8 6 Q 7 3 > >> Q 6 3 > >> A Q T 9 6 4 > >> ? > >> J T 9 5 > >> > >> West North East South > >> 2D > >> Pass 2S Pass 3H > >> Pass 4H Pass Pass > >> Pass > >> > >> 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, > >> 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South?s 3H > >> came after a long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the > >> auction. > >> > >> > >> > >> During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw > >> nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought > >> for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that *since his > >> partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot > >> the system.* > >> > >> The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > >> > >> Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary > >> Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. > >> > >> What is your opinion about this case? > >> > > > > I agree with the TD's and AC's decision. > > > > I hope that E-W are prepared to offer some significant evidence to > > support their accusation of cheating against N-S. If they are > > convening an Ethics & Discipline Committee based on nothing more than > > the evidence from this particular incident, it is they, not N-S, who > > ought to be disciplined. > > > > AG : there is an obvious piece of evidence : North's voluntary use of > UI, that he was silly enough to admit (I put it in bold) > I think it is enough to launch a disciplinary meeting, if NS aren't > beginners. Is your opinion really that a violation of L16B1(a) is the same as cheating except when it is done by beginners? Sven From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 18:49:35 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 18:49:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl><493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be><003301c95ac5$6b2df180$15844c59@chello.pl> <493FDDBF.8080507@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001e01c95aef$aa95d700$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [snipped] > > Nowadays the UI restrictions and the MI restrictions are clashing, > > Wrong! > They were clashing when the predecessor to L20F5a was written. Contrary > to dws cases, such happenings are very common. They always have been > very common. The only place where UI restrictions and MI are nowadays > clashing is among directors discussing on blml. The ordinary player does > not realise that they are clashing, until he comes up to a problem of > this sort. Moonshine. Ordinary players may not know about L20F5a or L20F1 but they everyday encounter the situations in which they have to decide what to disclose or alert, in which way, which questions they can ask safely, which will result in harmful UI, what is correct systemic explanation, when to correct misexplanations, how to cope with already created MI or UI etc etc. And by "nowadays" I meant last 15-20 years, that was written in the context of the historical deliberations. It's nothing strange that L20F5a wasn't changed in this period, the lawmakers were aware of the problem long time ago and they made their decision. That is only you who is deluded that the dWS was legal. Recent WBFLC minutes didn't *change* the meaning of the law, they only *clarified* how should it be understood (and what it always meant), to satisfy barrack-room lawyers like you, who are searching for holes to implement their own idiosyncratic ideas. > What places? What plural? There are only two places where there is a > clash: L20F5a and dws. Herman, the bridge world doesn't consist only from your favourite pet ideas like dWS. I listed above many situations in which such conflicts exist. > It is silly to believe that these places are so > different that they require a totally different solution to "win the > battle". Name me one good reason why the battle should be won by > different sides. It's simple, the lawmakers accept the inevitable unintentional, but not deliberate creation of UI and MI. Correction of MI is something different from creating new MI. In the dWS cases UI is only a by-product of giving a correct explanation. Another aspect - following the dWS you have to deliberately lie to save your skin. Maybe your morals don't estrange you from that, but many people have other feelings. Consequent explaining only according to the system is morally unambiguous - that's what the opponents are entitled to. Of course nobody is forbidden to give more (like giving both explanations, advocated by Bob). And allowing for both, the dWS and the CS, would result in a situation, where the laws would support better scores for unethical players than for ethical ones. Last (there may be more, I only thought about those in 5 minutes) difference - in the dWS you can't be always sure what did your partner have in mind, in the CS you know your system. > > Look at the classic > > different approach - in England the regulators decided that there were too > > many problems with UI transmition caused by unnecessary questions and they > > strongly advise the players to ask only if it is really needed to make a > > bidding decision, in ACBL the regulators encourage the players to > > consistently ask for an explanations of alerted calls (even if not germane > > to the bidding decision) and place emphasis on the free, full disclosure. > > The other RAs have their own, often different policies (read my discussion > > with Richard). > > > > But none of these are differences with regards to MI. There are indeed > different levels of tolerance for UI sending. Ok, maybe I'm partially in fault. I thought that explaining the historical context would make it clear that by "MI" I understood all the things connected with new systems, disclosure etc. As I see it was not clear to you, so maybe I should use another notion. > > To sum it up, I don't agree with you that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI (and > > I don't agree with the opposite). They know that they have to find the best > > compromise and in different situations different priorities prevail. They > > accept that for the auction/board period accidental MI may survive to stop > > additional UI, but they don't accept *deliberate* creating of MI. They give > > the nearly unconditional right to ask questions but they warn that the > > questioning may create UI for the partner and restrict his options. As > > always, we don't operate on black or white, but on different shades of grey. > > > > As to our personal ideas - you consider UI worse, I consider MI worse. > > That's why we will never agree in the evaluation of the concepts like the > > dWS. > > > > That is true, but that was not part of the discussion here. Why? Alain was commenting the regulation forbidding the alerting of doubles. He was deliberating the different amounts of MI and UI caused by different regulations. You jumped in claiming that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI. I was trying to show you that such claim is not justified. > > Creation of UI and MI is inevitable. UI is inherent in the F2F bridge and > > nobody has an absolute memory to always remember his agreements, especially > > pick-up partnerships and social players will create tons of MI. But the > > important point is that the mere fact of creating UI does not make harm to > > the opponents. Only *usage of UI* is harmful. And that is something which > > can be cured by education. Yes, there will always be cheats who will abuse > > UI deliberately, no, we shouldn't write the laws which objective is to catch > > the cheats at the cost of all the innocents. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 19:19:14 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:19:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <004e01c95af3$ce9cb8e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [Torsten] South K None vul K J 8 A 9 8 6 5 4 K 4 2 A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 7 2 5 3 K Q T 3 J 7 2 A 8 6 Q 7 3 Q 6 3 A Q T 9 6 4 - J T 9 5 West North East South 2D Pass 2S Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South's 3H came after a long hesitation. North's raise to game closed the auction. TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to the fact that 2[ was not alerted, South's pause before 3H and North's decision to raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W's questioning. After the play TD was again called to the table asked for a ruling. It's not clear from TD's investigations what other options South has when having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest choice. TD considered that South's failure to alert and the slow 3H-bid strongly suggests raise with the North hand - it's possible that South had misunderstood the 2S-bid. TD's ruling was 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. N/S appealed the ruling. During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn't alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the system. The AC upheld TD's decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic's and Disciplinary Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. What is your opinion about this case? [Maciej] I would bid 4H with North's hand but I think that pass is a LA. Much depends on the style of Multi openings. I play solid preempts but I know people who open NV Jx QT9xxx xx Qxx. Even better hands do not guarantee a playable game. Assuming that pass is a LA the rest of ruling is straightforward - S apparently forgot the system (otherwise he has a clear 4H bid), didn't alert and hesitated - that was UI for N demonstrably suggesting bidding game. As to the disciplinary part of the case - I'm not positioned to give decisive opinions without the knowledge of the full facts, NS background and level of skill and EW arguments. If N is a beginner I would explain the concept of UI to him, don't penalize him and return the (supposed) deposit. If N is an experienced player he should get at least a severe PP for his attitude after the auction and especially deliberate use of UI (to which he admitted in the AC hearing). I would retain the (supposed) deposit. Now the accusation - deliberate and conscious use of UI is some kind of cheating but it should be dealt with PP and stern reprimand. Refering the case to EDC is for me too much (although EW may be unhappy with the lack of ordinary disciplinary actions by the TD and AC) unless of course EW have more arguments (possibly from the general knowledge of N habits). Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 19:23:56 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:23:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no> Message-ID: <005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Is your opinion really that a violation of L16B1(a) is the same as cheating except when it is done by beginners? > Sven Deliberately violating any law in order to improve one's own score may certainly be treated as cheating. I think that you too narrowly identify cheating only with illegal signaling. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Dec 10 21:12:33 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:12:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001e01c95aef$aa95d700$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl><493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be><003301c95ac5$6b2df180$15844c59@chello.pl> <493FDDBF.8080507@skynet.be> <001e01c95aef$aa95d700$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <494022B1.8060901@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > > [snipped] > >>> Nowadays the UI restrictions and the MI restrictions are clashing, >> Wrong! >> They were clashing when the predecessor to L20F5a was written. Contrary >> to dws cases, such happenings are very common. They always have been >> very common. The only place where UI restrictions and MI are nowadays >> clashing is among directors discussing on blml. The ordinary player does >> not realise that they are clashing, until he comes up to a problem of >> this sort. > > Moonshine. Ordinary players may not know about L20F5a or L20F1 but they > everyday encounter the situations in which they have to decide what to > disclose or alert, That is not a clash between MI and UI. Not if you believe your partner knows the system you will be disclosing. > in which way, which questions they can ask safely, which > will result in harmful UI, That is not a clash between MI and UI. > what is correct systemic explanation, when to > correct misexplanations, That is a clash between MI and UI. The laws tell us that we shall leave the MI and not give UI. That was a choice of the WBF. Am I correct, or not? That this was a choice? That there was an alternative: direct correction, being UI to partner, but no more MI to opponents. You have come out in favour of that manner, even. I admire your consistency, but you have made a choice. So has the WBF. A different one, but that is not important. What is important, to this discussion, is that you realise the WBF made this choice. Some time ago. And that they confirmed that choice by not altering this law, not even in 2007, when Grattan had full knowledge of the DWS problem, and I even suggested to him the law change you seem to be advocating. So I believe the WBF again made this choice in 2007. > how to cope with already created MI or UI etc etc. > > And by "nowadays" I meant last 15-20 years, that was written in the context > of the historical deliberations. It's nothing strange that L20F5a wasn't > changed in this period, the lawmakers were aware of the problem long time > ago and they made their decision. Indeed they did. And by that choice they tell us that they prefer MI to continue to exist over UI to be created. > That is only you who is deluded that the > dWS was legal. Since this is the logical extension of that long established principle, it is a bit strong to be calling this "deluded". You are the one using strong language here, not me. > Recent WBFLC minutes didn't *change* the meaning of the law, > they only *clarified* how should it be understood (and what it always > meant), The laws say A, they are clarified into meaning B, and you can maintain that this is what they always meant? If you really don't understand that my views are not so strange as they look to you, if you really don't understand that L20F5a literally say that one should give CEs, if you really don't understand that the WBF have turned 180? from the logical extension of age-old policies, then there is no hope for you. Don't get me wrong. I accept that the WBF have the right to turn 180?. I accept that some people believe their text has accomplished that. I even accept that the laws be changed in this manner, that extra clarification is given. But I do not accept that this is logically necessary (quite the reverse) and I certainly don't accept that the laws have said this all along, or that it was the intention of anybody prior to 1996 when this issue was first brought to light. And I shall continue to fight to have this abomination turned back again. > to satisfy barrack-room lawyers like you, who are searching for > holes to implement their own idiosyncratic ideas. > No comment. What does idiosyncratic mean, anyway? >> What places? What plural? There are only two places where there is a >> clash: L20F5a and dws. > > Herman, the bridge world doesn't consist only from your favourite pet ideas > like dWS. I listed above many situations in which such conflicts exist. > Well, you listed them, and I commented on each and everyone of them, and all but the two already mentioned were something else but clashes between UI and MI. >> It is silly to believe that these places are so >> different that they require a totally different solution to "win the >> battle". Name me one good reason why the battle should be won by >> different sides. > > It's simple, the lawmakers accept the inevitable unintentional, but not > deliberate creation of UI and MI. Correction of MI is something different > from creating new MI. And this is where you are completely wrong. They are exactly the same thing. If a player knows something about the system, and he does not tell it to his opponents, he is giving them MI. Let me ask you this hypothetical. "What are your leads?" ask the opponents before playing the first board. They are turning towards your partner and he's the one answering: "third/fifth" he says. You realise that you only play this against trumps, and that against NT you lead "fourth". Yet you say nothing. Who has given MI? He? You? both of you? I think it is both of you. You had the chance to correct it, and you did not. You are an acoomplice. To say that not correcting MI is not a crime is beyond me. Especially if you then start distinguishing between inadvertent and intentional giving of MI. Your partner gave inadvertent MI - he did not know any better. But you did know, and you kept quiet. That is intentional. To say that the intentional giving of extra MI is so much worse that the intentional keeping quiet about MI given by partner is - I used the words before, and I keep by the analogy - hypocritical. > In the dWS cases UI is only a by-product of giving a > correct explanation. But so it would be in correcting partner's MI: a by-product! Exactly the same situation. > Another aspect - following the dWS you have to > deliberately lie to save your skin. Maybe your morals don't estrange you > from that, but many people have other feelings. You've used this argument a number of times and I've debunked it just as many times. My situation is no worse than that of a player who has not had to answer a second question, so I don't feel morally estranged from doing this. You cannot judge this on morals, only the WBF can. You have said yourself that you don't feel well about keeping quiet about the MI in the ordinary case. Yet you do it. Because it's the law. So maybe your sense of morals is just a little bit more masochistic than mine? Don't judge my morals by your standards. > Consequent explaining only > according to the system is morally unambiguous - that's what the opponents > are entitled to. Have you not yet got it in your grasp that they don't always get what they are entitled to? And that the laws are there to rectify any damage that results from that? You yourself keep quiet about partner's MI, because the law tells you. There too, the opponents have not gotten what they are entitled to. That does not seem to bother you, does it? > Of course nobody is forbidden to give more (like giving > both explanations, advocated by Bob). And allowing for both, the dWS and the > CS, would result in a situation, where the laws would support better scores > for unethical players than for ethical ones. That is just slanderous. You are calling the dws unethical, based on nothing but you disgreeing with me. You are first stating that the dws is illegal, from which you are deduce that to act like this is being unethical, and from you decide that the dws must be illegal, since it is acting unethically. Don't you see that this is circular reasoning? If the dws is accepted, then there is nothing unethical about employing it, and so the score I arrive at is morally justified. You cannot use arguments like this, Maciej. > Last (there may be more, I only > thought about those in 5 minutes) difference - in the dWS you can't be > always sure what did your partner have in mind, in the CS you know your > system. > Crazy argument, as well. Easily refuted: You make a call, thinking you are playing system A. Your partner explains it as system B. Now he makes a call. Tell me which of these three explanations you know the least well: a- the meaning of his call under system A b- the meaning of his call under system B c- the meaning of his call under the system that you are playing. Think about it, and you'll see that you are quite certain of a-, probably reasonably certain about b- (after all, that is one of the givens in this problem - that you do know system B). What you are in any event least certain of is c-, since you must be doubting which of the two systems is the true one (most notably so because it depends on the TD's decision). So your argument is totally untrue. It is far easier to give a CE than a SE one. >>> Look at the classic >>> different approach - in England the regulators decided that there were > too >>> many problems with UI transmition caused by unnecessary questions and > they >>> strongly advise the players to ask only if it is really needed to make a >>> bidding decision, in ACBL the regulators encourage the players to >>> consistently ask for an explanations of alerted calls (even if not > germane >>> to the bidding decision) and place emphasis on the free, full > disclosure. >>> The other RAs have their own, often different policies (read my > discussion >>> with Richard). >>> >> But none of these are differences with regards to MI. There are indeed >> different levels of tolerance for UI sending. > > Ok, maybe I'm partially in fault. I thought that explaining the historical > context would make it clear that by "MI" I understood all the things > connected with new systems, disclosure etc. As I see it was not clear to > you, so maybe I should use another notion. > Well, all these things are arguments as well (in my favour even, but I'm digressing). What got this particular discussion started was Alain saying that the WBF have preferred UI over MI, and my saying that this is manifestly untrue, since in the law that deals with the most frequent occuring situation in which there is a conflict between MI and UI, the WBF have actually chosen in favour of allowing MI to exist. >>> To sum it up, I don't agree with you that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI > (and >>> I don't agree with the opposite). They know that they have to find the > best >>> compromise and in different situations different priorities prevail. > They >>> accept that for the auction/board period accidental MI may survive to > stop >>> additional UI, but they don't accept *deliberate* creating of MI. They > give >>> the nearly unconditional right to ask questions but they warn that the >>> questioning may create UI for the partner and restrict his options. As >>> always, we don't operate on black or white, but on different shades of > grey. >>> As to our personal ideas - you consider UI worse, I consider MI worse. >>> That's why we will never agree in the evaluation of the concepts like > the >>> dWS. >>> >> That is true, but that was not part of the discussion here. > > Why? Alain was commenting the regulation forbidding the alerting of doubles. > He was deliberating the different amounts of MI and UI caused by different > regulations. You jumped in claiming that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI. I > was trying to show you that such claim is not justified. > And I have showed that you were wrong and I was right. The laws do prefer MI to UI. L20F5a is the most important one dealing with this issue. Do you want another one? L20F1 - "replies should be given by the partner". Again, the laws prefer MI to be given to opponents, rather than UI from bidder to partner. Of course, this is not as good an example as L20F5a, because the giving of that MI could easily be corrected, and we would not know the partner does not know the system if we allow the bidder to give the explanation. But the principle is the same - the WBF accepts that MI is given, and is happy with damage being rectified without further penalties. >>> Creation of UI and MI is inevitable. UI is inherent in the F2F bridge > and >>> nobody has an absolute memory to always remember his agreements, > especially >>> pick-up partnerships and social players will create tons of MI. But the >>> important point is that the mere fact of creating UI does not make harm > to >>> the opponents. Only *usage of UI* is harmful. And that is something > which >>> can be cured by education. Yes, there will always be cheats who will > abuse >>> UI deliberately, no, we shouldn't write the laws which objective is to > catch >>> the cheats at the cost of all the innocents. > >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. (who had a spare half hour - gone in just one message to blml) From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 10 21:37:51 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:37:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no> <005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no> On Behalf Of Bystry > Sent: 10. desember 2008 19:24 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? > > Hi, > > > Is your opinion really that a violation of L16B1(a) is the same as > cheating except when it is done by beginners? > > > Sven > > Deliberately violating any law in order to improve one's own score may > certainly be treated as cheating. I think that you too narrowly identify > cheating only with illegal signaling. I consider deliberate use of CPU by mutual agreement within a partnership as equivalent to cheating. The description of this case doesn't in any way indicate such activity. Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 10 23:01:44 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:01:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: >..... >It's not clear from TD's investigations >..... >Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethics and Disciplinary >Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. > >What is your opinion about this case? Richard Hills: What was the Ethics and Disciplinary Committee's opinion? If the E & DC has not yet formed an opinion, then my opinion is that it is most improper for blml to be prejudging a case involving such a grave allegation, especially since "It's not clear" suggests that the E & DC may discover new facts. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 23:44:47 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:44:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl><493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> <493F8E29.4080201@skynet.be><003301c95ac5$6b2df180$15844c59@chello.pl> <493FDDBF.8080507@skynet.be><001e01c95aef$aa95d700$15844c59@chello.pl> <494022B1.8060901@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002d01c95b18$e7b03f80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, >> Moonshine. Ordinary players may not know about L20F5a or L20F1 but they >> everyday encounter the situations in which they have to decide what to >> disclose or alert, > That is not a clash between MI and UI. Not if you believe your partner > knows the system you will be disclosing. Are you really dumb or are you only acting the fool? [me, from the email you are responding to] > Ok, maybe I'm partially in fault. I thought that explaining the historical > context would make it clear that by "MI" I understood all the things > connected with new systems, disclosure etc. As I see it was not clear to > you, so maybe I should use another notion. [/me] >> what is correct systemic explanation, when to >> correct misexplanations, > That is a clash between MI and UI. The laws tell us that we shall leave > the MI and not give UI. That was a choice of the WBF. Am I correct, or > not? That this was a choice? Yes, of course. Another quote: [me, earlier] > To sum it up, I don't agree with you that the lawmakers prefer MI to UI (*and > I don't agree with the opposite*). [/me] >> That is only you who is deluded that the >> dWS was legal. > Since this is the logical extension of that long established principle, > it is a bit strong to be calling this "deluded". You are the one using > strong language here, not me. Logic is in the eye of the beholder. I gave three cogent reasons why the situations are completely different. >> Recent WBFLC minutes didn't *change* the meaning of the law, >> they only *clarified* how should it be understood (and what it always >> meant), > The laws say A, they are clarified into meaning B, and you can maintain > that this is what they always meant? Sorry Herman, but you are one of the very sparse minority who claim that the laws say A. > If you really don't understand that my views are not so strange as they > look to you, if you really don't understand that L20F5a literally say > that one should give CEs, if you really don't understand that the WBF > have turned 180? from the logical extension of age-old policies, then > there is no hope for you. Sorry Herman, but your "literal" reading reminds me of my friend's little brother who understood "to do the dirty on somebody" which in Polish is literally "to plant a pig to somebody" as a real exercise of planting a real pig to make somebody look ridiculous (it was during a family supper, his father stated that his colleague "planted a pig to his boss" and the child asked with genuine surprise "did he really bring around a pig to the boss' office? wherefrom did he take this pig?"). Although "in any manner" was probably intented as "with the help of any mannerism", it really says "in any way" and here you are formally right. But the meaning of "indicate" you misinterpret willingly. I recommend to read some dictionaries and to read this email of mine: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2008-December/044406.html > And I shall continue to fight to > have this abomination turned back again. "Take care, your worship, those things over there are not giants but windmills" > What does idiosyncratic mean, anyway? >From MW: 1 a: a peculiarity of constitution or temperament : an individualizing characteristic or quality b: individual hypersensitiveness (as to a drug or food) 2: characteristic peculiarity (as of temperament) ; broadly : eccentricity >> It's simple, the lawmakers accept the inevitable unintentional, but not >> deliberate creation of UI and MI. Correction of MI is something different >> from creating new MI. > And this is where you are completely wrong. I love this phrase :-) > They are exactly the same > thing. If a player knows something about the system, and he does not > tell it to his opponents, he is giving them MI. Moonshine. To tell something about his system he has to be asked and allowed to answer. None of which applies to this case. But in the case of follow-up question he *is* asked and he *is obligated by the laws* to answer. One more thing - correction may only repair MI already provided, not undo it. > Let me ask you this hypothetical. > "What are your leads?" ask the opponents before playing the first board. > They are turning towards your partner and he's the one answering: > "third/fifth" he says. You realise that you only play this against > trumps, and that against NT you lead "fourth". Yet you say nothing. Who > has given MI? He? You? both of you? I think it is both of you. You had > the chance to correct it, and you did not. You are an acoomplice. Both of us. But both of us were asked and both of us were required to answer. > To say that not correcting MI is not a crime is beyond me. > Especially if you then start distinguishing between inadvertent and > intentional giving of MI. Your partner gave inadvertent MI - he did not > know any better. But you did know, and you kept quiet. That is intentional. Yes, but what can I do? As you know I'm a supporter of an instant MI correction. > To say that the intentional giving of extra MI is so much worse that the > intentional keeping quiet about MI given by partner is - I used the > words before, and I keep by the analogy - hypocritical. That's your opinion. Supported by nothing. The witness of a murder who didn't interfere isn't treated in the same way as a murderer. Sometimes he is even free of any charge because interference would surely result in his own death. As a side note - intentional keeping quiet is not really intentional, it is enforced by the laws. >> In the dWS cases UI is only a by-product of giving a >> correct explanation. > But so it would be in correcting partner's MI: a by-product! > Exactly the same situation. Yes. And so what? The lawmakers decided to give a half of cake to each side. >> Another aspect - following the dWS you have to >> deliberately lie to save your skin. Maybe your morals don't estrange you >> from that, but many people have other feelings. > You've used this argument a number of times and I've debunked it just as > many times. "Debunked"? In the same way as a thief would debunk my statement then stealing is morally bad. He would say - "My morals aren't hurted by stealing and I profit from it - I have more money to make my life happier". > My situation is no worse than that of a player who has not > had to answer a second question, so I don't feel morally estranged from > doing this. You cannot judge this on morals, only the WBF can. The presence/absence of the second question is mainly function of luck. Maciej and Herman have the football. They both want to see how high they can kick it. Kicking in this place is dangerous because around is a block of flats. Maciej kicks the ball strongly, it flies high, the wind directs it, so that it misses the block. Herman kicks the ball strongly, it flies high, the wind directs it, so that it hits the window and breaks it. Now Herman feels that it's not fair that Maciej did the same and won't have to bear the consequences. He can't do anything with that, but he can try to avoid the responsibility by lying that his legs are so weak that he couldn't be able to kick the ball so high. And of course he claims that Henry or Jack or even Maciej aren't allowed to judge Herman's deed on morals, although they all would admit to breaking the window and pay for new glass. > You have said yourself that you don't feel well about keeping quiet > about the MI in the ordinary case. Yet you do it. Because it's the law. > So maybe your sense of morals is just a little bit more masochistic than > mine? Don't judge my morals by your standards. I don't feel well, but still I don't have to lie. And I'm not covering a lie from my partner, only the inadverent mistake. If I knew that my partner gave MI deliberately I would instantly correct it (law or not law), finish the board and afterwards ask the TD to allow me to withdraw from the tournament. >> Consequent explaining only >> according to the system is morally unambiguous - that's what the opponents >> are entitled to. > Have you not yet got it in your grasp that they don't always get what > they are entitled to? And that the laws are there to rectify any damage > that results from that? Herman, there is a strong difference between being mislead accidentally and deliberately. The redress may be the same (although as I already showed in the past the dWS often may result in the worse score for the NOS), but the difference is how you see the opponents afterwards. Someone, who consciously lies in order to save his b*** at the cost of confusing the opponents and preventing them from having fun playing normal bridge, is for me a cheat and should be banished from the bridge society. > You yourself keep quiet about partner's MI, because the law tells you. > There too, the opponents have not gotten what they are entitled to. That > does not seem to bother you, does it? You perfectly know that it bothers me. But still - I don't have to lie. > You are first stating that the dws is illegal, from which you are deduce > that to act like this is being unethical, and from you decide that the > dws must be illegal, since it is acting unethically. Don't you see that > this is circular reasoning? Moonshine. I'm stating that the dWS is unethical because it is deliberate lying in order to confuse the opponents and avoid the poor score you are heading at. The legality has nothing in common with my view. > If the dws is accepted, then there is nothing unethical about employing > it, and so the score I arrive at is morally justified. You cannot use > arguments like this, Maciej. No. That won't change my view. >> Last (there may be more, I only >> thought about those in 5 minutes) difference - in the dWS you can't be >> always sure what did your partner have in mind, in the CS you know your >> system. > Crazy argument, as well. Easily refuted: Eh, delusions... > You make a call, thinking you are playing system A. Your partner > explains it as system B. Now he makes a call. Tell me which of these > three explanations you know the least well: > a- the meaning of his call under system A > b- the meaning of his call under system B > c- the meaning of his call under the system that you are playing. > Think about it, and you'll see that you are quite certain of a-, Sure. > probably reasonably certain about b- (after all, that is one of the > givens in this problem - that you do know system B). ??? I play only one system - A. I don't know anything about B. Sometimes I will probably know what my partner intented from my general bridge knowledge. That is not what I should disclose. > What you are in any > event least certain of is c-, since you must be doubting which of the > two systems is the true one (most notably so because it depends on the > TD's decision). That doesn't matter. If I'm not sure I continue along my way. If I really change my mind then I follow partner's explanation. It would be max 1% of cases. And about the TD's decision I don't think by no means. I play bridge to have fun and test my skill, and I want my opponents to have at least as much fun and allow them to test their skills. If I foul them they should get the best possible redress and I won't try bridge-lawyering to avoid the responsibility. I'm fully aware that it is your main argument - I've just yesterday read the thread "De Whale" from April 2007 and I saw that you used it in almost every email "what would the TD do", "what would the TD do", "what would the TD do". I'm close to shoot a cat. Tim rightly pointed out that thinking at the table what will be a TD's decision isn't playing bridge. But you of course think otherwise - for you it is not most important that the correct bridge result is achieved at the table, more important is what will the result be after the TD ruling. Pathetic. > Herman. > (who had a spare half hour - gone in just one message to blml) Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 10 23:47:11 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:47:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no> Message-ID: <003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > Deliberately violating any law in order to improve one's own score may > > certainly be treated as cheating. I think that you too narrowly identify > > cheating only with illegal signaling. > > I consider deliberate use of CPU by mutual agreement within a partnership as > equivalent to cheating. > The description of this case doesn't in any way indicate such activity. > > Sven Apparently you didn't understand me. I'll ask a simple question - do you consider deliberately breaking of any rule in order to obtain better score as cheating or not? Regards Maciej From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 11 00:12:56 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:12:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no> <003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no> On Behalf Of Bystry > > > > Deliberately violating any law in order to improve one's own score may > > > certainly be treated as cheating. I think that you too narrowly identify > > > cheating only with illegal signaling. > > > > I consider deliberate use of CPU by mutual agreement within a partnership > as > > equivalent to cheating. > > The description of this case doesn't in any way indicate such activity. > > > > Sven > > Apparently you didn't understand me. I'll ask a simple question - do you > consider deliberately breaking of any rule in order to obtain better score > as cheating or not? As a Director I never take the word "cheat" in my mouth nor do I accept it used as an accusation unless accompanied by convincing evidence to the fact that the players accused have deliberately and premeditated used some concealed partnership understanding (including signaling methods not disclosed to opponents). A break of Law 72B1 is a serious offence, but not in itself cheating. Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Dec 11 00:27:32 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:27:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating Message-ID: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> Wonders never cease. I think I basically agree with Sven and Herman (and Bystry as well). I wonder if this has ever happened before. JE From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 00:47:44 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 00:47:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no> Message-ID: <000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > Apparently you didn't understand me. I'll ask a simple question - do you > > consider deliberately breaking of any rule in order to obtain better score > > as cheating or not? > > As a Director I never take the word "cheat" in my mouth nor do I accept it > used as an accusation unless accompanied by convincing evidence to the fact > that the players accused have deliberately and premeditated used some > concealed partnership understanding (including signaling methods not > disclosed to opponents). > > A break of Law 72B1 is a serious offence, but not in itself cheating. So I was right, you are using "cheat" as only a part of its real meaning. >From MW: transitive verb 1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud 2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice 3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting intransitive verb 1 a: to practice fraud or trickery ***b: to violate rules dishonestly *** 2: to be sexually unfaithful -usually used with on 3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of a play in that area This definition is compliant with the meaning of this word in Polish. For me the player cheats when e.g. he deliberately revokes in the hope of the better result. Take note that I'm writing "player", not pair. In your interpretation only pair may be cheating, which can't be certainly correct. Your understanding has a special word in Polish - "cynkowac", it's "tipping someone a wink" or "tipping-off". So for me NS may be not "tip-offs" but N is certainly a cheat (provided that he is experienced and knew UI laws). > Sven Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 01:06:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:06:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >Wonders never cease. I think I basically agree with Sven and >Herman (and Bystry as well). I wonder if this has ever >happened before. JE Richard Hills: I basically disagree with the explicit assumption of Jeff, Sven, Herman, Maciej and the Lawbook that cheating is "the gravest possible offence". I vote for infractions of Law 74A2 instead. >>declarer uttered some pithy comments about sportsmanship, >>thereby infracting The Prime Directive: >> >>"A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that >>might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or >>might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." The good news is that on the drive home dummy carefully explained to declarer the error of his ways. After sleeping on it, declarer apologised to dummy the following day (declarer had also directed some pithy comments at dummy when dummy had used Law 92D1 to prevent declarer appealing), and declarer announced his intent to apologise to the opponents and to the Director in charge at the first available opportunity. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 11 01:54:48 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:54:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no> <000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no> On Behalf Of Bystry > > > Apparently you didn't understand me. I'll ask a simple question - do you > > > consider deliberately breaking of any rule in order to obtain better > score > > > as cheating or not? > > > > As a Director I never take the word "cheat" in my mouth nor do I accept it > > used as an accusation unless accompanied by convincing evidence to the > fact > > that the players accused have deliberately and premeditated used some > > concealed partnership understanding (including signaling methods not > > disclosed to opponents). > > > > A break of Law 72B1 is a serious offence, but not in itself cheating. > > So I was right, you are using "cheat" as only a part of its real meaning. > > >From MW: > > transitive verb > 1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud > 2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice > 3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting > intransitive verb > 1 a: to practice fraud or trickery ***b: to violate rules dishonestly at cards>*** > 2: to be sexually unfaithful -usually used with on > 3: to position oneself defensively near a particular area in anticipation of > a play in that area > > This definition is compliant with the meaning of this word in Polish. For me > the player cheats when e.g. he deliberately revokes in the hope of the > better result. Take note that I'm writing "player", not pair. In your > interpretation only pair may be cheating, which can't be certainly correct. > Your understanding has a special word in Polish - "cynkowac", it's "tipping > someone a wink" or "tipping-off". > > So for me NS may be not "tip-offs" but N is certainly a cheat (provided that > he is experienced and knew UI laws). I think that you initially should take a look at Law 73E. This law specifically allows actions that seem to be included in your understanding of "cheating"? Then you should take a look at Law 23. You may not be aware of it but (according to what I have heard) this law was originally introduced in order to give the Director a possibility to rule "cheating" without using that word. The term "cheating" in bridge is now reserved for the gravest violations of law as described in law 73B2, and violation of this law will usually result in expulsion from all bridge events. Regards Sven From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 02:48:58 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 02:48:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no><000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no> Message-ID: <000d01c95b32$a2bc1f60$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > I think that you initially should take a look at Law 73E. This law > specifically allows actions that seem to be included in your understanding > of "cheating"? ??? Am I really writing so incomprehensibly? I repeat once again - I consider deliberate breaking of rules (laws, regulations) in order to gain something as cheating. What has that in common with deceiving the opponents through legal calls and plays? > Then you should take a look at Law 23. You may not be aware of it but > (according to what I have heard) this law was originally introduced in order > to give the Director a possibility to rule "cheating" without using that > word. Yes, I know about L23. But we are not talking about the situations in which the TD (or anybody else) suspects cheating but has no proof, so he rules by "could have known". We are talking about the case in which the offender *admitted* that he consciously broke the laws (if he was aware of them, that's something we don't know). What can be a better proof than self-admittance? > The term "cheating" in bridge is now reserved for the gravest violations of > law as described in law 73B2, and violation of this law will usually result > in expulsion from all bridge events. Reserved by whom? In Poland there is no such reservation. But don't understand me wrongly - I'm not calling anyone a cheat on the basis of mere suspicion. Private talks are something different than face-to-face accusation. In fact I did it only once - the opponent made a faulty claim, tabled his hand and when we started to call the TD he quickly picked it up and later stated to the TD that he never claimed and we are fantasizing. Then I consciously and purposefully called him a liar and cheat. I was rebuked by the TD but later he believed us (by the way, the dummy was in the toilet), ruled the claim made, gave a big PP to the declarer and referred the case to this player's administrative district. I don't know if he was there penalized, such decisions are published but unfortunately without names and without specific reason (only the district authorities receive names to be able to control that the player doesn't play in their tournaments). Back to present, "cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word like "miscreant", "scoundrel", "rascall" or "scum". I may agree to reserve "cheat" to the L73B2 cases but then please propose a different notion to describe those who intentionally break other laws. And do not use "offenders", that would put such players in the same category with all those who accidentally infract the laws. > Regards Sven Regards Maciej From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 11 04:17:53 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 03:17:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no><000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl><001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no> <000d01c95b32$a2bc1f60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001701c95b3f$144d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 1:48 AM Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? > "cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word < +=+ I must disagree. To allege that an individual cheats at cards may lead to an action for libel. The laws do not anywhere use the word. The intention of the laws is that one should refer to violations of correct procedure, and to violations or breaches of law, offences. These are all related to adjudged failure to comply with the Laws of Duplicate Bridge, and while Law 73B2 does refer to prearrangement the law is still set in terms of the 'gravest possible offence'. The strongest action that the Director can take is disqualification under Law 91B. He is empowered to disqualify a contestant 'for cause' and further consideration of what represents 'cause' is left to the Director jointly with the Tournament Organizer, and may be by reference to relevant By-Laws or Conditions of Contest. The suggestion of expulsion which appeared in the 1997 Law 73B2, and even more strongly in 1987, has been expunged from the 2007 laws as being inappropriate to the purpose of the laws and not a matter for inclusion there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 04:22:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:22:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493D790A.6060504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >As soon as partner calls, you announce the call's meaning, >unless an opponent asks you to delay explanations until >after the auction. >..... >Criticism welcome, especially if you can suggest a better >alternative. Richard Hills: 1) Announcing the meaning of all of partner's calls would give an incentive to hoi polloi to create their system at the table, rather than via homework (which is why RAs who have "announce" regulations have restricted "announcements" to the most basic agreements which hoi polloi would be most unlikely not to have, or to forget once created). 2) Announcing every call would not only slow down auctions to a crawl (especially relay auctions), but would also vastly increase Law 16C (Extraneous Information from Other Sources) rulings whenever a stentorian announcement is overheard at an adjacent table. 3) Delaying announcements until the end of the auction, to prevent the opponents creating system at the table, would cause the reverse "flying-blind into -800" problem. 4) Due to my family pride in my ancestral descent, I haughtily believe that the ABF Alert Regulation is a better alternative. http://www.abf.com.au/events/tournregs/ABFAlertRegs083.pdf W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Mikado: "I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 11 05:10:31 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:10:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c959ed$ffbd7f60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Likewise, Maciej could give this heads-up 10-second pre-Alert for >>his partnership at the start of play, "We play some funny low-level >>doubles," obviating the need for Maciej to illegally Alert his non- >>Alertable doubles during the auction. >> >>What's the problem? Maciej Bystry: >The problem is that such warning will be followed by "aha, what >doubles?" and we're back at 2 minutes :-) Richard Hills: My experience of the ABF pre-Alert regulation is different. The opponents gaze in fascinated horror at our comprehensively completed four-page system cards, listen to my 10-second summary of our pre- Alertable gimmicks, then humorously state that asking for further explanations is something they would do if they sought a cure for insomnia. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 11 05:28:53 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:28:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <493E6132.4080409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alexander Pope (1688-1744): Here thou, great Anna! whom three realms obey, Dost sometimes counsel take -- and sometimes tea. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : the fact that non-alert laws aren't in touch with common >sense is shown in the following facts : >- some pairs have begun devising strange doubles and redoubles >that they hope will give problems to their opponents because >they won't even imagine *this* double could be something special. [big snip] Richard Hills: In my opinion comparing the self-alerting doubles and redoubles of Belgium with the self-alerting doubles and redoubles of Australia is comparing apples and oranges. Because Australia's self-alerting calls are combined with pre- alerts and post-alerts, devising strange doubles and redoubles in Australia is an exercise in futility, since the ABF reg requires even more timely alerting of the strangeness via a pre-alert (thus permitting _advance_ preparation of a defence to the strangeness). What's the problem? The problem seems to be that Belgium apparently has a stand- alone non-alert regulation, which verges on being an illegal regulation due its apparent encouragement of concealed partnership understandings. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Dec 11 10:15:37 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:15:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ac in Amasterdam In-Reply-To: <005c01c94362$f8abbb70$ea033250$@de> Message-ID: Hi Josef, I like to come back to part of our conversation by telephone a week ago. Thinking about the discussion I had with your team in Amsterdam I consider it possible that I have said something like: may be you find somebody in Amsterdam to hear your case. But it is not right to take this sentence out of the discussion as a whole. That is why I did not recognize it probably. I tried to convince the team that the appeal procedure was over and the final decison taken. But they did not accept that fact and urged a further step. At a certain stage I may have underlined the position by such remark. This was not meant to offend and I still don't see harm in it. Best regards, ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Josef Harsanyi Sent: maandag 10 november 2008 19:35 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] Ac in Amasterdam Sorry Ton, I want to take back all of mine suggestions and insinuations, if my information about the happenings in Amsterdam were not correct. Only within the limits of sportsmanship and absolutely correctness can I imagine to find the answers on the questions regarding the ruling of AC which made the German Team from winner to "not winner". Sorry in advance, if the members of AC made their job without any deviation from the regulations. Josef to collect the facts, is not any more possible, as the Law prescribes - despite of the 100% sportmanship of the four players. It will be written a lot of sentences about the unsatisfactorily circumstances. The analysis of this case is complex, the hunger in stomach and limited time for understanding and deciding makes every AC nervous, esspecially if the taxi for the AC-members is waiting in front of the House. ton: This is the not uncommon level of debate with mean suggestions and insinuations. It is not easy to show sportmanship when you loose a match. The AC met from 19.45 till 21.00 (forgive me a difference of one or two minutes) to handle these appeals. Only when the three appeals were dealt with and communicated with the teams involved taxis were called. They appeared at 21.15h. ton _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 11 10:40:00 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:40:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4940DFF0.5020200@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > The problem seems to be that Belgium apparently has a stand- > alone non-alert regulation, which verges on being an illegal > regulation due its apparent encouragement of concealed > partnership understandings. > The difference between a self-alert and a non-alert policy is only apparent if one believes that non-alerted calls cannot be asked about. In fact, both are different names for exactly the same rule: a certain type of calls can not be alerted, whatever its meaning. Under Australian habits, that meant they had to "change" their habit/law, that said that non-alerted calls could not be asked about, so they called them "self-alerting". In Belgium, people are more clever/less law-abiding, and they realise that if a call cannot be alerted, then surely it can be asked about - so they did not bother making the distinction between a non-alerted call (because it was natural) and a non-alerted call (because it could not be alerted). But really, there is no difference between an Australian and a Belgian non-alerted double: opponents need to ask about it. And of course Belgium also has SCs and pre-alerts, so to say that Australians are better can only come from an immigration official. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 11 10:43:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:43:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating In-Reply-To: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> Message-ID: <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> I have an idea: as a christmas gift to blml we shall try to find a topic on which Maciej, Sven, Richard and I agree. Then we can have a jolly sing-along and everyone can join in Jeff's wonder! Only trouble is: where shall we find such a unanimous case so that all four of us will actually agree on it? Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Wonders never cease. I think I basically agree with Sven and Herman > (and Bystry as well). I wonder if this has ever happened before. JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From PeterEidt at t-online.de Thu Dec 11 11:03:13 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:03:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Something_NOT_about_cheating?= In-Reply-To: <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1LAiO1-0x3fFY0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> > I have an idea: as a christmas gift to blml we shall try to find a > topic on which Maciej, Sven, Richard and I agree. Then we can have a > jolly sing-along and everyone can join in Jeff's wonder! > > Only trouble is: where shall we find such a unanimous case so that all > four of us will actually agree on it? Law 1 ?? > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > Wonders never cease. ?I think I basically agree with Sven and Herman > > (and Bystry as well). ?I wonder if this has ever happened before. > > JE From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 11 13:18:28 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 13:18:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no> Message-ID: <49410514.8060208@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > Is your opinion really that a violation of L16B1(a) is the same as cheating > except when it is done by beginners? > AG : that's a very good question. Notice that it doesn't take two to cheat, e.g. peeking into opponents' cards. Most aren't, but the most deliberate are, at leazst in spirit. When somebody thinks 'my partner hesitated, ergo he has such-and-such, and I'm going to use that information', that's cheating indeed. But in general the thought process is less blatant, sometimes unconscious, sometimes merely being influenced. Here, North's remark clearly indicated that he was in a 'totally conscious' state of mind. Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 14:06:15 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:06:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no><000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl><001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no><000d01c95b32$a2bc1f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <001701c95b3f$144d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > "cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word > < > +=+ I must disagree. To allege that an individual cheats > at cards may lead to an action for libel. Rather slander. Nevermind, I'm not talking of the unproven cases, I'm talking about the cases in which: - the "offender" admitted that he deliberately broke the laws or - the "offender" is caught deliberately lying That is not an allegation and certainly not a slander. That is stating the facts. > The laws do not > anywhere use the word. The intention of the laws is that > one should refer to violations of correct procedure, and > to violations or breaches of law, offences. These are all > related to adjudged failure to comply with the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge, and while Law 73B2 does refer to > prearrangement the law is still set in terms of the 'gravest > possible offence'. All right, Grattan, but I'm not talking about the notions used in the laws, I'm asking if the player deliberately breaking the laws can be called a cheat. Only in already proven cases, not on the basis of suspicion. The letter of the laws has to be cautious because it refers to the "at the table" situations where the intent of the offender is almost always impossible to prove. > The strongest action that the Director can take is > disqualification under Law 91B. He is empowered to > disqualify a contestant 'for cause' and further consideration > of what represents 'cause' is left to the Director jointly with > the Tournament Organizer, and may be by reference to > relevant By-Laws or Conditions of Contest. Yes, I know that. But in the actual situation presented by Torsten the case was referred to the Ethics and Disciplinary Comittee and the offenders were accused of cheating. Sven claims that "cheating" is reserved only to L73B2 infractions, whereas I claim that "cheating" is a proper notion to describe all the cases in which the offender breaks the laws deliberately in order to improve his own score. Will you take a stance or you'll hide behind the language of the laws? ;-) > The suggestion of expulsion which appeared in the > 1997 Law 73B2, and even more strongly in 1987, has > been expunged from the 2007 laws as being inappropriate > to the purpose of the laws and not a matter for inclusion > there. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 14:19:09 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:19:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003a01c95b93$0d094040$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > > >>Likewise, Maciej could give this heads-up 10-second pre-Alert for > >>his partnership at the start of play, "We play some funny low-level > >>doubles," obviating the need for Maciej to illegally Alert his non- > >>Alertable doubles during the auction. > >> > >>What's the problem? > > Maciej Bystry: > > >The problem is that such warning will be followed by "aha, what > >doubles?" and we're back at 2 minutes :-) > > Richard Hills: > > My experience of the ABF pre-Alert regulation is different. The > opponents gaze in fascinated horror at our comprehensively completed > four-page system cards, listen to my 10-second summary of our pre- > Alertable gimmicks, then humorously state that asking for further > explanations is something they would do if they sought a cure for > insomnia. Yeah, descriptions of the n-th level of relays may be certainly as much boring as watching the parliament debates. But to be serious - when playing against unfamiliar relay system it is quite reasonable to ask about many things, there is no surprise when something is untypical. But playing against common, natural (or popular) system with some untypical middle-agreements it's hard to know what should be questioned. Pre-alerting helps only partially, because without detailed description the opponents still have to ask about many things unnecessairly, thus creating UI for themselves and for the explainers (preventing which was the purpose of the self-alert regulation). I gave an example in my earlier email and you didn't comment. I'm still waiting because without that I'm not able to estimate how the ABF regulations really work. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 14:42:24 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 14:42:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > I have an idea: as a christmas gift to blml we shall try to find a topic > on which Maciej, Sven, Richard and I agree. Then we can have a jolly > sing-along and everyone can join in Jeff's wonder! > > Only trouble is: where shall we find such a unanimous case so that all > four of us will actually agree on it? I'll try. You are due something for constant losing the debates with me ;-) The auction goes (dealer S): 1C (Polish Club) - pass - 1D (mostly negative) - 2D - pass - (?) (?) now W starts to fumble with an Alert card, looks very uncertain but finally makes an Alert, being asked by S he explains 2D as Wilkosz (5-5 with at least one major). The auction continues: 1C - pass - 1D - 2D - pass - 2H (after Wilkosz NF, a tolerance for hearts) - pass - 3C - pass - 3NT - all pass Now N leads something and the dummy (E) appears - singleton in spades, ATx in hearts, five diamonds and four clubs, 15 nice HCP. S reserves his rights and the play continues. 3NT is just made and S calls the TD. E says to his partner "what Wilkosz? it's natural, nobody plays Wilkosz in this position" (true). The TD arrives and S claims that 3C and especially pass of 3NT could be based on the UI from Alert and explanation of 2D. 4H would go one down. How would you rule? > Herman. Regards Maciej From jrhind at therock.bm Thu Dec 11 15:01:34 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 10:01:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: I think we are getting hung up here on a word. As a director I do not believe it is ever necessary to use the words like "cheating" in reference to a player or his/her actions. A player may be deemed to have been unethical either by actions taken at the table or by his/her own admission to a director or AC. If that is the case then there are varying degrees of being unethical and the laws give us the power to deal with those varying degrees accordingly. A minor breach of ethics can be dealt with by a warning or a penalty while a very serious breach of ethics can be dealt with by a disqualification or suspension. Slander is avoided in all cases by avoiding the use of words such as cheat. It is better to describe a persons unacceptable behaviour rather than attack their personality. Jack On 12/11/08 9:06 AM, "Bystry" wrote: > Hi, > >> "cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word >> < >> +=+ I must disagree. To allege that an individual cheats >> at cards may lead to an action for libel. > > Rather slander. Nevermind, I'm not talking of the unproven cases, I'm > talking about the cases in which: > > - the "offender" admitted that he deliberately broke the laws or > - the "offender" is caught deliberately lying > > That is not an allegation and certainly not a slander. That is stating the > facts. > >> The laws do not >> anywhere use the word. The intention of the laws is that >> one should refer to violations of correct procedure, and >> to violations or breaches of law, offences. These are all >> related to adjudged failure to comply with the Laws of >> Duplicate Bridge, and while Law 73B2 does refer to >> prearrangement the law is still set in terms of the 'gravest >> possible offence'. > > All right, Grattan, but I'm not talking about the notions used in the laws, > I'm asking if the player deliberately breaking the laws can be called a > cheat. Only in already proven cases, not on the basis of suspicion. The > letter of the laws has to be cautious because it refers to the "at the > table" situations where the intent of the offender is almost always > impossible to prove. > >> The strongest action that the Director can take is >> disqualification under Law 91B. He is empowered to >> disqualify a contestant 'for cause' and further consideration >> of what represents 'cause' is left to the Director jointly with >> the Tournament Organizer, and may be by reference to >> relevant By-Laws or Conditions of Contest. > > Yes, I know that. But in the actual situation presented by Torsten the case > was referred to the Ethics and Disciplinary Comittee and the offenders were > accused of cheating. Sven claims that "cheating" is reserved only to L73B2 > infractions, whereas I claim that "cheating" is a proper notion to describe > all the cases in which the offender breaks the laws deliberately in order to > improve his own score. > > Will you take a stance or you'll hide behind the language of the laws? ;-) > >> The suggestion of expulsion which appeared in the >> 1997 Law 73B2, and even more strongly in 1987, has >> been expunged from the 2007 laws as being inappropriate >> to the purpose of the laws and not a matter for inclusion >> there. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Thu Dec 11 15:04:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:04:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no><000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl><001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no><000d01c95b32$a2bc1f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <001701c95b3f$144d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001301c95b99$5e1b6f70$1a524e50$@no> On Behalf Of Bystry > > "cheat" is not a kind of mega-strong word > > < > > +=+ I must disagree. To allege that an individual cheats > > at cards may lead to an action for libel. > > Rather slander. Nevermind, I'm not talking of the unproven cases, I'm > talking about the cases in which: > > - the "offender" admitted that he deliberately broke the laws or > - the "offender" is caught deliberately lying > > That is not an allegation and certainly not a slander. That is stating the > facts. A true cheat would never admit that he deliberately broke the law. While anybody of course can be caught lying, a true cheat can never be caught deliberately lying. Sven From sater at xs4all.nl Thu Dec 11 15:04:19 2008 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:04:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no><000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl><001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no><000d01c95b32$a2bc1f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <001701c95b3f$144d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <00b701c95b99$5f7f9350$1e7eb9f0$@nl> Even if in this case the North player freely admitted breaking the law on purpose we should be careful in using big words like c****. Only if North understood that he broke the law on purpose can we start talking big words. In my experience a lot of players just do not understand the laws and their obligations therein. In which case we should only rectify and teach, not punish. Hans From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 11 15:05:51 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:05:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating In-Reply-To: <1LAiO1-0x3fFY0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> <1LAiO1-0x3fFY0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49411E3F.2090203@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: >> I have an idea: as a christmas gift to blml we shall try to find a >> topic on which Maciej, Sven, Richard and I agree. Then we can have a >> jolly sing-along and everyone can join in Jeff's wonder! >> >> Only trouble is: where shall we find such a unanimous case so that all >> four of us will actually agree on it? > > Law 1 ?? > Quite probable that we won't have a discussion about that one. Quite possible it is the highest numbered law for which this turns out to be true. :) Early season's greetings, Herman. >> Herman. >> >> Jeff Easterson wrote: >> >>> Wonders never cease. I think I basically agree with Sven and Herman >>> (and Bystry as well). I wonder if this has ever happened before. >>> JE > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 11 15:18:12 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:18:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating In-Reply-To: <004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> <004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49412124.6050003@skynet.be> Hello Maciej, considering that you are writing to me, I feel bound to give an answer. Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> I have an idea: as a christmas gift to blml we shall try to find a topic >> on which Maciej, Sven, Richard and I agree. Then we can have a jolly >> sing-along and everyone can join in Jeff's wonder! >> >> Only trouble is: where shall we find such a unanimous case so that all >> four of us will actually agree on it? > > I'll try. You are due something for constant losing the debates with me ;-) > > The auction goes (dealer S): > > 1C (Polish Club) - pass - 1D (mostly negative) - 2D - pass - (?) > > (?) now W starts to fumble with an Alert card, looks very uncertain but > finally makes an Alert, I assume South reserved his right to change his pass, but did not do so after receiving the explanation. > being asked by S he explains 2D as Wilkosz (5-5 with > at least one major). The auction continues: > > 1C - pass - 1D - 2D - pass - 2H (after Wilkosz NF, a tolerance for hearts) - I assume it's natural if 2D is natural, not Wilkosz? > pass - 3C - pass - 3NT - all pass > I assume 3C is not using the UI knowledge that 2H may not be based on long hearts? > Now N leads something Did east not correct the explanation Wilkosz? I assume it did not really matter. > and the dummy (E) appears - singleton in spades, ATx > in hearts, five diamonds and four clubs, 15 nice HCP. S reserves his rights > and the play continues. 3NT is just made and S calls the TD. E says to his > partner "what Wilkosz? it's natural, nobody plays Wilkosz in this position" > (true). I had read this far, my answers above are based on 2D not being Wilkosz. > The TD arrives and S claims that 3C and especially pass of 3NT could > be based on the UI from Alert and explanation of 2D. 4H would go one down. > > How would you rule? > Well, West did not call over 1C, so he's not very long and strong in hearts. East made what he thought was a natural call in diamonds. He hears his partner bid hearts. I assume that 2D is not forcing, so 2H would not show many diamonds. Now east tries a second suit, and west does not repeat his hearts, but bids 3NT. I think this shows not many hearts (not six) and a spade stopper. Passing 3NT is certainly normal. Would bidding 4H be a LA? I'm not certain, and I'd need to ask some players, but my gut feeling says no. Score stands. Of course presuming the correction before the lead, otherwise I try to find some other way towards a AS against EW. Anyway, even if we manage to agree - I don't think this counts. I would never feel bad about disagreeing about a case like this. I would always yield to the better player or to a majority, or to some good argumentation. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 16:09:43 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:09:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <493FEBC3.2020805@ulb.ac.be> <000f01c95ae8$f2219750$d664c5f0$@no><005601c95af4$76a03260$15844c59@chello.pl> <001101c95b07$2c27e300$8477a900$@no><003301c95b19$3d233f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <001b01c95b1c$d6114e00$8233ea00$@no><000d01c95b21$b2dc4c00$15844c59@chello.pl><001c01c95b2b$11617210$34245630$@no><000d01c95b32$a2bc1f60$15844c59@chello.pl> <001701c95b3f$144d0930$0302a8c0@Mildred><002c01c95b91$40049f00$15844c59@chello.pl> <001301c95b99$5e1b6f70$1a524e50$@no> Message-ID: <001d01c95ba2$7fac5600$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > A true cheat would never admit that he deliberately broke the law. Sorry, this is completely false. Many cheats admit to breaking the law, e.g. under the interrogation, privately to somebody (thinking it won't come to light), in the fever of the situation and so on. You are still equating "cheat" with "scoundrel, miscreant". Not every "cheat" is a "miscreant", as not every thief is a dangerous robber (poor man who steals a bread from the shop is still a thief). But I give up, we can stand on our different understandings of this word. I use it in a way the dictionaries and Polish practice state. In Norway it may be used differently and I'll accept that. > While anybody of course can be caught lying, a true cheat can never be > caught deliberately lying. Look at my example from the previous email. That man deliberately lied and was caught. If you don't consider him "a true cheat" we will never get our messages across. > Sven Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 16:44:13 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:44:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be><004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49412124.6050003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002b01c95ba7$518b00a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Unfortunately I failed :-( > Hello Maciej, > > considering that you are writing to me, I feel bound to give an answer. > > Bystry wrote: > > Hi, > > > >> I have an idea: as a christmas gift to blml we shall try to find a topic > >> on which Maciej, Sven, Richard and I agree. Then we can have a jolly > >> sing-along and everyone can join in Jeff's wonder! > >> > >> Only trouble is: where shall we find such a unanimous case so that all > >> four of us will actually agree on it? > > > > I'll try. You are due something for constant losing the debates with me ;-) > > > > The auction goes (dealer S): > > > > 1C (Polish Club) - pass - 1D (mostly negative) - 2D - pass - (?) > > > > (?) now W starts to fumble with an Alert card, looks very uncertain but > > finally makes an Alert, > > I assume South reserved his right to change his pass, but did not do so > after receiving the explanation. Yes. > > being asked by S he explains 2D as Wilkosz (5-5 with > > at least one major). The auction continues: > > > > 1C - pass - 1D - 2D - pass - 2H (after Wilkosz NF, a tolerance for hearts) - > > I assume it's natural if 2D is natural, not Wilkosz? Yes. > > pass - 3C - pass - 3NT - all pass > > > > I assume 3C is not using the UI knowledge that 2H may not be based on > long hearts? You are the TD. You have to decide. > > Now N leads something > > Did east not correct the explanation Wilkosz? I assume it did not really > matter. No, but that doesn't matter - everybody saw a dummy and S knew it earlier anyway. That is not a MI case. > > and the dummy (E) appears - singleton in spades, ATx > > in hearts, five diamonds and four clubs, 15 nice HCP. S reserves his rights > > and the play continues. 3NT is just made and S calls the TD. E says to his > > partner "what Wilkosz? it's natural, nobody plays Wilkosz in this position" > > (true). > > I had read this far, my answers above are based on 2D not being Wilkosz. Correct. > > The TD arrives and S claims that 3C and especially pass of 3NT could > > be based on the UI from Alert and explanation of 2D. 4H would go one down. > > > > How would you rule? > > > > Well, West did not call over 1C, so he's not very long and strong in hearts. > East made what he thought was a natural call in diamonds. He hears his > partner bid hearts. I assume that 2D is not forcing, so 2H would not > show many diamonds. Now east tries a second suit, and west does not > repeat his hearts, but bids 3NT. I think this shows not many hearts (not > six) and a spade stopper. Passing 3NT is certainly normal. Would bidding > 4H be a LA? I'm not certain, and I'd need to ask some players, but my > gut feeling says no. Score stands. Of course presuming the correction > before the lead, otherwise I try to find some other way towards a AS > against EW. You have 15HCP and 1-3-5-4. Following your own analysis - partner is not strong (he passed after 1C), he has 5 hearts (with 6 he could have jumped, it is not sure, the suit could be too weak, but still after 3C he would rather bid 3H), he has a spade stopper, he is probably short in diamonds. Now tell me - how do you imagine making 3NT? What tricks do you want to take? Is one stopper in spades enough to make 9 tricks? Compare that to 4H. You have 8 trumps, ruffing values in spades, tricks in the minors. In fact most people polled bid 4H after 2H, some temporarized with 3C to invite the game in hearts and later bid 4H over 3NT. Nobody repeated the actions of E. I know the case because I was S. I called the international TD who after the poll ruled 4H -1. The opponents appealed and the AC under the lead of Slawek Latala (whom you should perfectly know) and consisting of 3 good players quickly rejected the appeal, tried to educated EW pair as to their obligations in the face of UI and kept the deposit. I'm horrified, because were you in the place of this TD I would have to appeal the ruling myself. Brrrrr :-) > Anyway, even if we manage to agree - I don't think this counts. I would > never feel bad about disagreeing about a case like this. I would always > yield to the better player or to a majority, or to some good argumentation. Heh, I'm not quite good at the cases like many revokes in one trick, penalty cards, insufficient calls etc. I wouldn't quibble with your estimation of such cases, provided you didn't make an egregious error in straight application. So I consider myself fit to dispute only cases of disclosure, claims, UI, MI. And here unfortunately we differ strongly. So there may be no hope ;-) > Herman. Regards Maciej From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Dec 11 17:44:38 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:44:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating In-Reply-To: <004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be> <004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000601c95baf$c4c6b110$4e541330$@com> [Bystry] The auction goes (dealer S): 1C (Polish Club) - pass - 1D (mostly negative) - 2D - pass - (?) (?) now W starts to fumble with an Alert card, looks very uncertain but finally makes an Alert, being asked by S he explains 2D as Wilkosz (5-5 with at least one major). The auction continues: 1C - pass - 1D - 2D - pass - 2H (after Wilkosz NF, a tolerance for hearts) - pass - 3C - pass - 3NT - all pass Now N leads something and the dummy (E) appears - singleton in spades, ATx in hearts, five diamonds and four clubs, 15 nice HCP. S reserves his rights and the play continues. 3NT is just made and S calls the TD. E says to his partner "what Wilkosz? it's natural, nobody plays Wilkosz in this position" (true). The TD arrives and S claims that 3C and especially pass of 3NT could be based on the UI from Alert and explanation of 2D. 4H would go one down. How would you rule? [DALB] Presumably East will tell me that 2H showed a stopper with a diamond fit (it cannot be natural, because he would have bid over 1C with a hand that wanted to bid hearts naturally now). He bid 3C because he had clubs but not spades guarded, and West bid 3NT with a (presumed) spade guard. Obviously I will believe East when he tells me this, because no one in Poland ever forgets the system, uses UI, or lies to the Director, so East has done nothing wrong. I will ask West what he thought 3C would mean playing Wilkosz (presumably some game try with clubs and a major, but different people might interpret the sequence differently). I suspect that he will not know, but until I have an answer I cannot proceed further with a ruling. Adjusting to 4H on the grounds that East ought to have thought West had hearts (Bystry's idea of the correct ruling) is ridiculous. When West tells me what 3C means in his version of Wilkosz, I may adjust to 4H anyway, but not for that reason. I might even adjust to 4S if West tells me the truth about his version of Wilkosz, in which 3C is a strong hand with the black suits. If West tells me that 3C doesn't mean anything playing Wilkosz, I will let the result stand. David Burn London, England From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 18:35:00 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:35:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be><004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000601c95baf$c4c6b110$4e541330$@com> Message-ID: <000701c95bb6$cb93b400$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [DALB] I have a grave difficulty to recognize whether this email is David's joke or is it serious. To protect myself from both possibilities I now am laughing and saying "Nice one, David", but beneath I'm trying to answer (nearly) seriously, just in case. That way even if I make fool of myself, I may still claim it was a conscious decision ;-) > Presumably East will tell me that 2H showed a stopper with a diamond fit (it > cannot be natural, because he would have bid over 1C with a hand that wanted > to bid hearts naturally now). No. Actually East said later at the AC meeting that he was confused, knew that partner thinks he has Wilkosz, didn't knew what his partner has and decided not to bid hearts because his partner may have only 3 of them. Typical moonshine of UI users. But for his exonaration I may say that he was real bunny, although playing in the finals of the Polish Championships. If 2H showed a heart stopper (I have never heard of anybody playing like that, but so I have never heard of many things) it would be certainly alerted. But I'd appreciate such creativity even after the board :-) And overcalling 1H on e.g. KTx QJTxx xx xxx vulnerable, with unpassed partner isn't my idea of bridge (not that it is valuable). But I would surely bid 2H after 2D, my partners usually understand that non-forcing means non-forcing (contrary to one of Kantar's expert partners who wanted nearly all calls to be forcing , so Kantar joked that his partnership should treat game invitational bids as a slam tries). > He bid 3C because he had clubs but not spades > guarded, and West bid 3NT with a (presumed) spade guard. Obviously I will > believe East when he tells me this, because no one in Poland ever forgets > the system, uses UI, or lies to the Director, so East has done nothing > wrong. "Cheese, you are on the Candid Camera?" :-) > I will ask West what he thought 3C would mean playing Wilkosz (presumably > some game try with clubs and a major, but different people might interpret > the sequence differently). I suspect that he will not know, but until I have > an answer I cannot proceed further with a ruling. I'm sure he won't know. Wilkosz is actually preemptive so W may be excused from not alerting and not understanding, but he should surely be not excused from not calling for the ambulance (with only one doubt - who should be taken to the loony bin). > Adjusting to 4H on the grounds that East ought to have thought West had > hearts (Bystry's idea of the correct ruling) is ridiculous. For my defence I may only say that although I consider myself as a worse TD and player than David, the people who made that ruling are actually at least equal to him in both aspects. But I admit that I'm actually a mobster with unlimited resources, afraid of whom is a whole country, not to speak about mere bridge competitors. So it's quite clear that all this people were bullied by me to make an illogical ruling. By the way, did I tell you what happened with my opponents afterwards? > When West tells > me what 3C means in his version of Wilkosz, I may adjust to 4H anyway, but > not for that reason. I might even adjust to 4S if West tells me the truth > about his version of Wilkosz, in which 3C is a strong hand with the black > suits. If West tells me that 3C doesn't mean anything playing Wilkosz, I > will let the result stand. Yes, it would be quite funny to impose UI rulings on the players who have no UI. I admit that I considered that at some time but I found no followers :-( Heh, the real genius always walks alone (don't treat that too seriously Herman). > David Burn > London, England Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 11 18:58:03 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:58:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You incorrectly bid 4NT for the minors, your partner correctly describes it as Blackwood, waking you up, and now you are asked to explain his 5D bid. Most people agree that you should explain this as a Blackwood response. The question is if there is any justification for that in the current laws. The problem is that Laws 20/40/75 suggest giving the proper explanation, which is Blackwood. But this requires using partner's explanation, which is UI. One resolution is this. First consider L73C. This has roughly parallel form to L16B and perhaps was intended by the authors of the law to say the same thing. So the phrase "that suggests a call or play" should be understood as being in L73C. Now consider L16B. "After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as for example by...a reply to a question.....the partner may not chose from among logical alternatives one that could have been demonstrably suggested over another by the extraneous information." It is very reasonable to assume that the authors intended to say "call or play" rather than "action". (I think the term "action" refers to anything a player might do at the table, such as claim, call the director, alert a bid, etc.) If so, it makes sense to interpret the rest of the law as applying only to calls and plays; it is illogical to first look at the UI's relevance to a call or play and then make a law about its use everywhere. So L16B doesn't apply to actions other than calls or plays. Because this phrase is understood to be in L73C, it also does not apply to actions other than calls or plays. Therefore, there is no inconsistency to resolve. --------- Thanks to a blmler who tried to answer my question off-list. I attempted to explain his answer, but I probably didn't get it exactly right. So the above should stand as a possible explanation. Of course, anyone is welcome to try to improve on it or provide a different one. I don't find this very convincing. I don't accept the justification to add that phrase to L73C or why one could not equivalently take it out of L16B. I am uncomfortable with leaving a player to use UI for anything except calls and plays. I also find the legitimacy of this interpretation lessened by the fact that L75A uses the word "act" instead of "make a call or play" to referring to the use of the UI. I have lost faith that there is any good way to derive this well-accepted principle from the laws. Does that make this principle an orphan law? I am guessing that blmler's choose wisely when they did not to try to justify this principle from the laws. Bob, whose wife, even though she was angry and frustrated because she could not get to sleep, could not stay awake through a two-minute presentation of this issue. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Dec 11 19:32:25 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:32:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating In-Reply-To: <002b01c95ba7$518b00a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be><004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49412124.6050003@skynet.be> <002b01c95ba7$518b00a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49415CB9.60300@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Hi, > > Unfortunately I failed :-( > Sorry Maciej, I told you it did not matter. > > You have 15HCP and 1-3-5-4. Following your own analysis - partner is not > strong (he passed after 1C), he has 5 hearts (with 6 he could have jumped, > it is not sure, the suit could be too weak, but still after 3C he would > rather bid 3H), he has a spade stopper, he is probably short in diamonds. > Now tell me - how do you imagine making 3NT? What tricks do you want to > take? Is one stopper in spades enough to make 9 tricks? Compare that to 4H. > You have 8 trumps, ruffing values in spades, tricks in the minors. > OK, you convinced me. > In fact most people polled bid 4H after 2H, some temporarized with 3C to > invite the game in hearts and later bid 4H over 3NT. Nobody repeated the > actions of E. I know the case because I was S. I called the international TD > who after the poll ruled 4H -1. The opponents appealed and the AC under the > lead of Slawek Latala (whom you should perfectly know) and consisting of 3 > good players quickly rejected the appeal, tried to educated EW pair as to > their obligations in the face of UI and kept the deposit. > I know Slawek very well - give him my greeting when you next meet him. > I'm horrified, because were you in the place of this TD I would have to > appeal the ruling myself. Brrrrr :-) > Well, do forgive me, I had no chance to consult. It's a close call, and I'm not one of those who rule "if it hesitates, shoot it". >> Anyway, even if we manage to agree - I don't think this counts. I would >> never feel bad about disagreeing about a case like this. I would always >> yield to the better player or to a majority, or to some good > argumentation. > > Heh, I'm not quite good at the cases like many revokes in one trick, penalty > cards, insufficient calls etc. I wouldn't quibble with your estimation of > such cases, provided you didn't make an egregious error in straight > application. So I consider myself fit to dispute only cases of disclosure, > claims, UI, MI. And here unfortunately we differ strongly. So there may be > no hope ;-) > Oh yes, there is always hope! :) >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Dec 11 19:44:07 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:44:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: Message-ID: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:58 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? The problem is that Laws 20/40/75 suggest giving the proper explanation, which is Blackwood. But this requires using partner's explanation, which is UI. > +=+ Giving the explanation to opponents is not using it yourself in the terms of the law. Please read Law 16B1(a) to learn what is forbidden. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harsanyi at t-online.de Thu Dec 11 19:54:19 2008 From: harsanyi at t-online.de (Josef Harsanyi) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:54:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ac in Amasterdam References: <005c01c94362$f8abbb70$ea033250$@de> Message-ID: <002301c95bc1$dff1a0a0$9fd4e1e0$@de> Hi Ton, thank you for your answer, and special thanks for the telephone discussion. The greatest problem was at this case surely not, if one of the participants (the Bamberger, you, or our opponents) used some little bit sharp phrases, or not. More important is, that the EBL and WBF examine this case and decide about the methodology of handling of hesitation at screens. Can in the future every TD consider this case, as a sample for good ruling? Will be allowed to call TD in a possible hesitation case from the "wrong" side, even after the play, but not after the end of round without absence of the opponents? Do have the accused players to believe that the TD call was in right time, also if they hear about the TD-call late after the end of round? Has this case a sample value for TD-s, not to decide, but the case to pass to AC (Law 83 D?)? At an European Championship will be not allowed to protest against this single stage decision? Other crucial points of the appeal process could be also discussed - if anyhow decision, why not a weighted score, why not ask East about their methods and some more points? I agree with you, if anyhow for the TD, or AC it is clear, that there was an unauthorized information and the receiver has used it, and consequently the opponents damaged, than the TD/AC has to make the rectification. A good sheriff knows how to rectify. Was he called from the good or wrong side, or heard he the story in the saloon, or watched on the TV. :) please smile - it was a joke, not an official statement. It is trivial, that the German players did not disputed/rejected the hesitation. It is normal at this and other German teams, like at all top players on the world. It is wrong, that they were not heard about the reasons of Wladow's 3NT and about his ideas about other alternatives (my local partner in club would pass ..he explained me very eloquent his reasons). Once later could be asked an expert panel about other bids. It is not fine, if they raised their voice in the discussion after the AC decision. We shall exercise it - like the soccer player - how to "accept" quietly a not clear decision. Perhaps together with our Italian friends in a ski-camp in the German Alps. Best regards Josef (without correcting by Jeff ) -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Im Auftrag von ton Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2008 10:16 An: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Betreff: Re: [blml] Ac in Amasterdam Hi Josef, I like to come back to part of our conversation by telephone a week ago. Thinking about the discussion I had with your team in Amsterdam I consider it possible that I have said something like: may be you find somebody in Amsterdam to hear your case. But it is not right to take this sentence out of the discussion as a whole. That is why I did not recognize it probably. I tried to convince the team that the appeal procedure was over and the final decison taken. But they did not accept that fact and urged a further step. At a certain stage I may have underlined the position by such remark. This was not meant to offend and I still don't see harm in it. Best regards, ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Josef Harsanyi Sent: maandag 10 november 2008 19:35 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] Ac in Amasterdam Sorry Ton, I want to take back all of mine suggestions and insinuations, if my information about the happenings in Amsterdam were not correct. Only within the limits of sportsmanship and absolutely correctness can I imagine to find the answers on the questions regarding the ruling of AC which made the German Team from winner to "not winner". Sorry in advance, if the members of AC made their job without any deviation from the regulations. Josef to collect the facts, is not any more possible, as the Law prescribes - despite of the 100% sportmanship of the four players. It will be written a lot of sentences about the unsatisfactorily circumstances. The analysis of this case is complex, the hunger in stomach and limited time for understanding and deciding makes every AC nervous, esspecially if the taxi for the AC-members is waiting in front of the House. ton: This is the not uncommon level of debate with mean suggestions and insinuations. It is not easy to show sportmanship when you loose a match. The AC met from 19.45 till 21.00 (forgive me a difference of one or two minutes) to handle these appeals. Only when the three appeals were dealt with and communicated with the teams involved taxis were called. They appeared at 21.15h. ton _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 11 20:55:33 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:55:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be><004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49412124.6050003@skynet.be><002b01c95ba7$518b00a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49415CB9.60300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001501c95bca$6dbb90a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > I'm horrified, because were you in the place of this TD I would have to > > appeal the ruling myself. Brrrrr :-) > > > > Well, do forgive me, I had no chance to consult. It's a close call, and > I'm not one of those who rule "if it hesitates, shoot it". I hope the smiley didn't escape your attention. Actually I may be partially at fault because I don't remeber exact E hand so I didn't want to mislead anybody. With x ATx AKxxx Axxx passing 3NT could be right - spade, 2 diamonds, club and 5 hearts. But real hand was something like x ATx KQTxx AQxx, so taking more than 8 tricks (rather only 7) was improbable. Anyway, in my response to David I presented arguments used by E at the AC hearing and it was clear his only thoughts at the table were "partner doesn't have hearts, so I cannot raise them". He was a bunny with no real knowledge of UI laws. West stated only that in his opinion 2H could be made on 4 cards, but what is funny - he wasn't suported by E who disagreed (actually this claim has some merit, although most players expect 5 hearts). Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 11 22:36:32 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 08:36:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <1LAiO1-0x3fFY0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: >>four of us will actually agree on it? Peter Eidt: >Law 1 ?? Richard Hills: Perhaps not, since I suggest that in 2018 Law 1 is revised to: "Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents who move their pieces alternately on a square board composed of an 8x8 grid of 64 squares alternately light (the "white" squares) and dark (the "black" squares)." A question which springs to mind is whether the WBF Executive has the power to promulgate such a 2018 Law 1. If the WBF Executive lacks the power to promulgate this 2018 Law 1, due to the WBF Executive lacking the power to change Duplicate Bridge to the entirely different game of chess, then other fundamental changes to the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook suggested by some blmlers would also be beyond the power of the WBF Executive to enact. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 11 23:51:29 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 22:51:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating In-Reply-To: <001501c95bca$6dbb90a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be><004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49412124.6050003@skynet.be><002b01c95ba7$518b00a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49415CB9.60300@skynet.be> <001501c95bca$6dbb90a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000301c95be3$0287fc60$0797f520$@com> [Bystry] Anyway, in my response to David I presented arguments used by E at the AC hearing and it was clear his only thoughts at the table were "partner doesn't have hearts, so I cannot raise them". He was a bunny with no real knowledge of UI laws. West stated only that in his opinion 2H could be made on 4 cards, but what is funny - he wasn't suported by E who disagreed. [DALB] Then the appeals committee has done a good job, and should (as they did) have convicted East out of his own mouth. Not of cheating - if he really did not know the Laws and his responsibilities thereunder, he should be educated rather than branded. That is, if West had explained 2D as natural (or, what is the same thing, not explained it at all) and if East having heard that (non-) explanation would have been sure that 2H showed at least five hearts, of course he ought not to have followed his actual sequence to 3NT, and of course the committee was right to rule that the table result should not stand. But I was not present at the appeal hearing, and what I wrote earlier was partly in jest and partly in earnest. The matter may be a little complex for many here whose expertise is primarily in legislating well rather than playing well, but: In auctions such as the given [Polish 1C] - Pass [negative 1D] natural 2D [Pass], bids such as 2H and 2S are played by many experts as stopper-showing rather than natural (you could have bid 1H/1S over 1D if you wanted to bid 2H/2S naturally now), while 3C is natural and not a cue bid (you could not bid clubs naturally over 1C because even though 1C is Polish, 2C might still be Michaels in your methods). It may have been that East was a good player used to such methods, while West was not. This was not the actual case, but the presentation of the actual case asked us to theorise without data. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 12 01:01:37 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:01:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] Something expert [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c95be3$0287fc60$0797f520$@com> Message-ID: Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary: "Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamoured of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others." David Burn: >...The matter may be a little complex for many here whose >expertise is primarily in legislating well rather than >playing well... Richard Hills: One problem in the 1997 Lawbook was its Drafting Committee was primarily composed of expert players whose legislation partly lacked the common touch. The more consultative approach taken in drafting the 2007 Lawbook has seen some Laws changed to suit the needs of non-experts, e.g. Law 65B3 and in particular Law 69B: "Agreement with a claim or concession (see A) may be withdrawn within the Correction Period established under Law 79C: 1. if a player agreed to the loss of a trick his side had, in fact, won; or 2. if a player has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side." Richard Hills: Sometimes a ch**t will realise that the only hope of making a hopeless contract is to claim. A dodgy claim would not work against an expert opponent, but might be plausible enough to work temporarily against a non-expert. The 1997 Lawbook made it very difficult for a non-expert to withdraw her acquiescence in a dodgy claim, but the 2007 Law 69B2 has the much more non-expert friendly wording "would likely have won". Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 12 01:13:17 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 01:13:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something about cheating References: <49405064.2020104@aol.com> <4940E0B7.4000203@skynet.be><004601c95b96$4d1343e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49412124.6050003@skynet.be><002b01c95ba7$518b00a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49415CB9.60300@skynet.be><001501c95bca$6dbb90a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c95be3$0287fc60$0797f520$@com> Message-ID: <000701c95bee$6efeb4a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [DALB] > But I was not present at the appeal hearing, and what I wrote earlier was > partly in jest and partly in earnest. The matter may be a little complex for > many here whose expertise is primarily in legislating well rather than > playing well, but: You may trust me that if any of the unexplained bids could have an artificial meaning I would say so. > In auctions such as the given [Polish 1C] - Pass [negative 1D] natural 2D > [Pass], bids such as 2H and 2S are played by many experts as stopper-showing > rather than natural (you could have bid 1H/1S over 1D if you wanted to bid > 2H/2S naturally now), while It's quite possible that foreign experts have such agreements against Polish Club. In Poland I don't know anyone who has. Of course I don't have full knowledge of the systems of our top players, but I played many times against them and it's probable I would encounter such agreements if they were popular. Certainly much depends on the style of overcalls, meaning of double (some play it is equal with 1C opening, some play that only majors are required), meaning and range of 1NT. If one plays that it is appropriate to overcall on 6-9 HCP without special distribution and suit of high quality then of course bidding 2H later as 5+ is senseless. But as I'm aware most of the top players overcall lighter only with good suits (lead-directing) and mostly after partner has passed. With Kxx KJxxx xx xxx or similar hands you would get 99% votes for pass in the poll, maybe a little less if partner was a passed-hand. But after 2D most of those players would bid 2H (more about that later). I have little knowledge of an English overcall style, but Poles have definitely different style of openings - many Acol openings would be passed by Polish Club users or opened as two-suiters/preempts. Anyway, if you consider Kxx QJxxx xx Kxx (or especially my earlier examples) as too bad to overcall 1H, what would you do after partner's 2D? Now back to the 2H. You may not know this, but in Poland we are overloaded with matchpoint events. IMP scoring are maybe 1/4 or 1/5 of local tournaments, about 1/4 of local congresses, 0% of our Grand Prix cycle, 1/10-1/12 during our summer big congresses. Teams are practically played only in the form of league, max 5 weekends in the year. Instead we have Teams Grand Prix, but in BAM scoring :-) So don't be suprised that our judgment, and what's worse, systems are mainly tailored to matchpoints. Very few partnerships have different sets of agreements for different forms of scoring (it's understandable, otherwise forgetting could be too important factor). I remember Kwiecien-Pszczola played 1X-1/2Y-2Z as NF at matchpoints and F1 at IMPs (by the way, most of the world players use it as F1, in Poland nearly everybody as NF - that's much better at matchpoints). But the majority has many matchpoint-typical agreements as Lebensohl in all the possible sequences, good/bad calls, major-searching priorities and disregard of minors (e.g. four of the minor is nearly always slam-try, not invitational and there are no, or very little limit-raises of minors), semi-preemptive raises etc etc. 3NT is a pet contract of all true "maxers", even with typical suit-play hands (that is not crazy, level of defence is low and NT is misdefended most frequently). Now you may understand why most of the players would overcall 2D lighter and would respond 2H with a weak hand, even if at IMPs pass would be safer. I remind you - a group of players was polled and on the AC there were two top players and one expert, all of them never questioned that 2H is natural. Some wanted to invite with E hand (I agree, at IMPs I would bid 4H directly, but at MP 2H may be weaker and game may be doubtful), some bid 4H directly. > 3C is natural and not a cue bid (you could not bid clubs naturally over 1C > because even though 1C is Polish, 2C might still be Michaels in your > methods). Most players use 2C overcall as natural (or Precision equivalent), but there are some (myself included) who use it as majors. I'm not aware of anyone playing classic Michaels in this position (actually even 1D-2D is now played frequently as only majors, not Michaels). > It may have been that East was a good player used to such methods, while > West was not. This was not the actual case, but the presentation of the > actual case asked us to theorise without data. I agree that I should disclose the level of EW before posting this problem. Sorry for inconvenience but I find this discussion constructive, as opposed to neverending dWS or psyche debates. > David Burn > London, England Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 12 07:13:18 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:13:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c95a63$0712bb20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: I gave an example in my earlier email and you didn't comment. I'm still waiting because without that I'm not able to estimate how the ABF regulations really work. Maciej Bystry earlier email: The concept of self-Alerting calls is in my opinion a bit shaky. Take an usual auction: 1D-1S-3S-4C-(?) In my system double of the call showing shortness suggests values in higher of the remaining suits (in this case double would entice heart lead, pass would warn against that). But double of the call showing values or undefined (e.g. simple cuebids) suggests lead in the suit shown by the doubled call. So to make any decision I have to ask for the meaning of 4C. Richard Hills queries: And if the opponents say "4C is undiscussed", what meaning does a double have in the Maciej system? Would the double of 4C consequently also be an undiscussed call? :-) Maciej Bystry earlier email: All right, self-Alerting (in Australia, in Poland there is no such rule), fine, but if the answer is "normal cuebid" and I pass, my partner knows that I have something in hearts - I don't want to double for a club lead and having nothing in hearts (and in clubs) I wouldn't bother to ask (regardless of an answer I was going to pass). Now tell me, what does "a lesser Law 16 risk" mean? Would my pair end ruled against if my partner chooses a heart lead in spite of having a logical alternative? Richard Hills: The lesser Law 16 risk can be illustrated thusly. If RHO opens 1C, and LHO does not Alert, because in the LHO-RHO system 1C promises at least three clubs, then asking "What does 1C mean?" puts you at significant Law 16 risk if you hold long and strong clubs in your hand. But if RHO opens 1C, and LHO Alerts, because in the LHO-RHO Symmetric Relay system (notes emailed on request) 1C promises at least 15 hcp with any distribution, then asking "What does 1C mean?" puts you at lesser Law 16 risk if you hold long and strong clubs in your hand, because the Alert may have caused you to ask the identical question if you had held long and strong hearts in your hand. What's the problem? Sir Alec Douglas-Home (pronounced Hume), British Prime Minister 1963-1964: "There are two problems in my life. The political ones are insoluble and the economic ones are incomprehensible." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 12 09:21:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:21:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49421EF5.4040006@skynet.be> Richard always seems to use logic, but his logic is totally wrong: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Perhaps not, since I suggest that in 2018 Law 1 is revised to: > > "Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents who move > their pieces alternately on a square board composed of an 8x8 > grid of 64 squares alternately light (the "white" squares) and > dark (the "black" squares)." > > A question which springs to mind is whether the WBF Executive > has the power to promulgate such a 2018 Law 1. Of course it has. Whether it would want to do that is quite a different manner. > If the WBF > Executive lacks the power to promulgate this 2018 Law 1, due > to the WBF Executive lacking the power to change Duplicate > Bridge to the entirely different game of chess, then other > fundamental changes to the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook suggested > by some blmlers would also be beyond the power of the WBF > Executive to enact. > Well, two answers: First, if the WBF decides to start writing the laws of chess, it has that power. But this is a silly analogy, of course. Secondly, whatever the WBF decides to put into the laws of bridge, automatically _becomes_ the laws of bridge. So if the WBF decide to writethe dws principles in the laws, then tese become bridge. To say that since dws principles are not bridge is a- totally biased and wrong; and b- having no regard for the people who promulgate the laws. And I know what Richard will say: why don't I just follow the laws of bridge as they currently are? Because they are not as Richard thinks they currently are. The WBF interpretation does not settle, IMO, that CEs are outlawed. It just settles that SEs are accepted - something which was not clear in the lawbook, even though I never argued against it. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 12 10:51:47 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:51:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Guess, III Message-ID: <49423433.2030303@ulb.ac.be> Hi all, Here is another guess case for you to judge. Pairs, none vul North Easr South West Jx Kxx xxx AQ10xx Axx QJ9 xxx K10xx AKx 8xxx QJ10x xx Axxxx KJx Qxx 10x 1NT p p 2Ca Dbl 2D p 2S p p p 2C = majors 2D = not alerted TD called by East, on the basis of the apparent discrepancy between the non-alert and the 2S bid. West'sdefenseis that : 1. They're playing for the second time together, and decided to play "their club's style" [true] 2. Among West's partners at that club, of which there are many, a majority play 2D after the double as natural, a few as "pick your major" [impossible to ascertain] 3. The main reason why he guessed to bid spades is that, if he went wrong, it would be less catastrophic, i.e. 2S is more or less playable facing xx-Qx-AQxxxx-Jxx, while 2D isn't playable facing the actual hand. Notice that this pair doesn't play a 2D overcall of 1NT as natural. Southt says that, had he known 2D was artificial, he would have bid 3C either over 2D or over 2S. a) do you accept West's explanation of his guess ? b) If you don't, do you accept South's claim and correct the contract to 3C ? No other pair played this contract. c) Would your decision be different if East had alerted and explained as "undiscussed" ? (something we try to avoid at this club, for obvious UI reasons) Thank you for your advice. Alain PS : if that makes any difference to you, 2S was a very good result for EW, because several pairs play in 2H ! (courtesy of DONT, the best-named convention in the World). From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 12 10:56:59 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4942356B.6010600@ulb.ac.be> Jack Rhind a ?crit : > I think we are getting hung up here on a word. As a director I do not > believe it is ever necessary to use the words like "cheating" in reference > to a player or his/her actions. A player may be deemed to have been > unethical either by actions taken at the table or by his/her own admission > to a director or AC. > > If that is the case then there are varying degrees of being unethical and > the laws give us the power to deal with those varying degrees accordingly. A > minor breach of ethics can be dealt with by a warning or a penalty while a > very serious breach of ethics can be dealt with by a disqualification or > suspension. > > Slander is avoided in all cases by avoiding the use of words such as cheat. > It is better to describe a persons unacceptable behaviour rather than attack > their personality. > AG : that's the modern way to do it. Physically impaired persons, no handicapped. Ethylic state, not drunkedness. Does it really help to say "your behaviour was absolutely unethical" than "you cheated" ? Anyway, the accusation is as strong, so the AC's and EC's reactions should be the same. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 12 11:00:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 11:00:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ac in Amasterdam In-Reply-To: <002301c95bc1$dff1a0a0$9fd4e1e0$@de> References: <005c01c94362$f8abbb70$ea033250$@de> <002301c95bc1$dff1a0a0$9fd4e1e0$@de> Message-ID: <49423648.9020608@ulb.ac.be> Josef Harsanyi a ?crit : > Hi Ton, > > thank you for your answer, and special thanks for the telephone discussion. > > The greatest problem was at this case surely not, if one of the participants > (the Bamberger, you, or our opponents) used some little bit sharp phrases, > or not. > > More important is, that the EBL and WBF examine this case and decide about > the methodology of handling of hesitation at screens. Can in the future > every TD consider this case, as a sample for good ruling? > AG : may I suggest some kind of X% rule ? Ask the player's peers who they think has hesitated on the other side of the screen. If a strong majority say it's obvious it's partner, then you may decide there was UI. From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 12 14:51:07 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:51:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801c95c60$aef6de80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Maciej Bystry earlier email: > > The concept of self-Alerting calls is in my opinion a bit shaky. Take an > usual auction: > > 1D-1S-3S-4C-(?) > > In my system double of the call showing shortness suggests values in higher > of the remaining suits (in this case double would entice heart lead, pass > would warn against that). But double of the call showing values or > undefined > (e.g. simple cuebids) suggests lead in the suit shown by the doubled call. > > So to make any decision I have to ask for the meaning of 4C. > > Richard Hills queries: > > And if the opponents say "4C is undiscussed", what meaning does a double > have in the Maciej system? Would the double of 4C consequently also be an > undiscussed call? :-) "But double of the call showing values or *undefined* (e.g. simple cuebids) suggests lead in the suit shown by the doubled call" > Maciej Bystry earlier email: > All right, > self-Alerting (in Australia, in Poland there is no such rule), fine, but if > the answer is "normal cuebid" and I pass, my partner knows that I have > something in hearts - I don't want to double for a club lead and having > nothing in hearts (and in clubs) I wouldn't bother to ask (regardless of an > answer I was going to pass). Now tell me, what does "a lesser Law 16 risk" > mean? Would my pair end ruled against if my partner chooses a heart lead in > spite of having a logical alternative? > > Richard Hills: > > The lesser Law 16 risk can be illustrated thusly. If RHO opens 1C, and LHO > does not Alert, because in the LHO-RHO system 1C promises at least three > clubs, then asking "What does 1C mean?" puts you at significant Law 16 risk > if you hold long and strong clubs in your hand. > > But if RHO opens 1C, and LHO Alerts, because in the LHO-RHO Symmetric Relay > system (notes emailed on request) 1C promises at least 15 hcp with any > distribution, then asking "What does 1C mean?" puts you at lesser Law 16 > risk if you hold long and strong clubs in your hand, because the Alert may > have caused you to ask the identical question if you had held long and > strong hearts in your hand. > > What's the problem? The problem is that you dodged my question. The reasons for questioning low-level calls form much broader scope. That's why even ABF does not forbid Alerts of such calls. But what with my 4C (and double) example? There the reason for questioning is clear. I'll ask in this form - player X questioned 4C, the response was "cuebid", he passed (double would suggest club lead), later his partner lead a heart, although a club lead was certainly an LA. The opponents call you (you're a TD) and ask for the ruling. After the inquiry you get to know that double of 4C showing shortness would suggest heart lead. What is your decision (heart lead defeated 6S, club lead would let it through)? Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 12 21:53:03 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:53:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked Long Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B is about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested explanation contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C should be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse than I thought. Grattan also said "Giving the explanation to opponents is not using it yourself in the terms of the law." I think Grattan is suggesting to give up on the project to say that L16B and L73C do not apply. Instead, admit that they do apply, admit this creates an apparent contradiction for this situation. Then.... Then I am left with an inconsistency. If I was to resolve it, I could go for following L16B and L73C, applying the principle of specificity -- they address the more specific situation. Is there something in the laws I have missed? Maybe there is a WBFLC opinion on this? Can we just count Grattan as the authority on how this contradiction should be resolved? (Should I just give up and put my efforts into something more worthwhile?) Bob > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 5:58 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > > > The problem is that Laws 20/40/75 suggest giving the > proper explanation, which is Blackwood. But this requires > using partner's explanation, which is UI. >> > +=+ Giving the explanation to opponents is not using > it yourself in the terms of the law. > Please read Law 16B1(a) to learn what is forbidden. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Sat Dec 13 10:04:03 2008 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:04:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Is there something in the laws I have missed? Maybe there is a WBFLC opinion on this? Can we just count Grattan as the authority on how this contradiction should be resolved? (Should I just give up and put my efforts into something more worthwhile?) Bob Yes you can, leaving the word 'just'. And yes you should give up. But then .... ton From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 13 11:54:26 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:54:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy > Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked Long > Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. > > Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B is > about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested explanation > contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C should > be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse than > I thought. > This is simply ridiculous. L16B1a clearly says "information that may suggest a call or play". Afterwards, there is only mention of "such information". To suggest that the words "action" later is meant to encompass more than what is written in the first law, just because it is not always repeated "call or play", is simply putting into the laws an intention that was never there. If this interpretation is written down by the WBF, then I'll prove in my very first tournament that bridge becomes unplayable. I'll hand out PPs for use of UI that will turn hairs white on all heads, including Kojak's. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 13 12:18:31 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:18:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <48DA26572AC32FF4@mail-11-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-11.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <00b001c95d14$8b961e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > > > Is there something in the laws I have missed? Maybe there is a WBFLC > opinion > on this? Can we just count Grattan as the authority on how this > contradiction should be resolved? (Should I just give up and put my > efforts > into something more worthwhile?) > > Bob > > > Yes you can, leaving the word 'just'. And yes you should give up. But then > .... > > ton > +=+ I do not claim to be 'the authority'. I am one member of a corporate body which is 'the authority' according to the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF. Like other members I try to distinguish between my personal opinions and the positions taken by the authority that I sometimes relay. When we express personal opinions we sometimes disagree; this is healthy and adult. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 13 12:23:29 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:23:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > Robert Frick wrote: >> Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy >> Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked >> Long >> Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. >> >> Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B >> is >> about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested >> explanation >> contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C >> should >> be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse >> than >> I thought. >> > > This is simply ridiculous. > > L16B1a clearly says "information that may suggest a call or play". > Afterwards, there is only mention of "such information". To suggest that > the words "action" later is meant to encompass more than what is written > in the first law, just because it is not always repeated "call or play", > is simply putting into the laws an intention that was never there. > > If this interpretation is written down by the WBF, then I'll prove in my > very first tournament that bridge becomes unplayable. I'll hand out PPs > for use of UI that will turn hairs white on all heads, including Kojak's. > > Herman. > +=+ Robert reports me inadequately. And Herman jumps in like a commando on D-Day. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 13 12:36:31 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:36:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49439E3F.9060404@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy >>> Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked >>> Long >>> Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. >>> >>> Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B >>> is >>> about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested >>> explanation >>> contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C >>> should >>> be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse >>> than >>> I thought. >>> >> This is simply ridiculous. >> >> L16B1a clearly says "information that may suggest a call or play". >> Afterwards, there is only mention of "such information". To suggest that >> the words "action" later is meant to encompass more than what is written >> in the first law, just because it is not always repeated "call or play", >> is simply putting into the laws an intention that was never there. >> >> If this interpretation is written down by the WBF, then I'll prove in my >> very first tournament that bridge becomes unplayable. I'll hand out PPs >> for use of UI that will turn hairs white on all heads, including Kojak's. >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ Robert reports me inadequately. And Herman jumps in like a > commando on D-Day. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > OK Grattan, I apologise. I misascribed this interpretation to your good self. But I stand by my words that this interpretation is ridiculous. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 13 17:21:44 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:21:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:54:26 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy >> Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked >> Long >> Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. >> >> Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B >> is >> about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested >> explanation >> contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C >> should >> be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse >> than >> I thought. >> > > This is simply ridiculous. > > L16B1a clearly says "information that may suggest a call or play". > Afterwards, there is only mention of "such information". To suggest that > the words "action" later is meant to encompass more than what is written > in the first law, just because it is not always repeated "call or play", > is simply putting into the laws an intention that was never there. > > If this interpretation is written down by the WBF, then I'll prove in my > very first tournament that bridge becomes unplayable. I'll hand out PPs > for use of UI that will turn hairs white on all heads, including Kojak's. > > Herman. Hi Herman. Thanks for answering. No one is talking about how to make director rulings. This is just my curiosity about if this director ruling can be derived from the laws in the lawbook (and WBFLC rulings too). Roughly, you are saying that L16 applies only to calls and plays. That would solve the problem (as L20/40/75 would now be the only relevant law governing choice of explanations). But it raises questions. There is a reference to "action" in L16B3. How are you interpreting this? Next, are you using that same definition for all uses of the term "action" in the laws? And if not, how do you interpret the use of the word "act" in L75A? How are you dispensing with L73C? You do not mention it in your answer. Bonus question. Other parts of the laws refer to calls and plays. Do you always restrict these laws to calls and plays, or do you sometimes generalize to all actions (or not all actions but more than just calls and plays)? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 13 17:33:49 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:33:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:23:29 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 10:54 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy >>> Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked >>> Long >>> Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. >>> >>> Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B >>> is >>> about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested >>> explanation >>> contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C >>> should >>> be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse >>> than >>> I thought. >>> >> >> This is simply ridiculous. >> >> L16B1a clearly says "information that may suggest a call or play". >> Afterwards, there is only mention of "such information". To suggest that >> the words "action" later is meant to encompass more than what is written >> in the first law, just because it is not always repeated "call or play", >> is simply putting into the laws an intention that was never there. >> >> If this interpretation is written down by the WBF, then I'll prove in my >> very first tournament that bridge becomes unplayable. I'll hand out PPs >> for use of UI that will turn hairs white on all heads, including >> Kojak's. >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ Robert reports me inadequately. Sorry Grattan. I was trying to fill in what you said. I would have guessed that I said too much, not too little. Anyway, I obviously am not getting what you are saying. Can you restate your position? Bob From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Dec 14 01:41:11 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 00:41:11 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? Message-ID: Teams deal S North S AKQxx H Tx D Axx C Qxx South S T9 H AKJ8x D Kxxx C Ax They precision and the bididng went as follows S N 1H 1S 3D 3S** 4S 1H 5+ hearts 11-15 1S 4+ spades 8+ points 3D NF maximum natural 3S** Agreed break in tempo. During the play the opps enquired if 3S was NF and was told by South that it was. Result 4S +2. The opps cal the td establish the BIT and say S cant bid 4S over a NF 3S bid having already bid his hand. N may have a 6 card suit and 8 points. The pause clearly demonstrated extras and allowed South another bid having already descibed his hand in a very narrow range. The Td ruled 3S+3 The Ac reverted the score back saying S is entitled to bid over 3S even NF if he wishes. Soooo Karel From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 14 03:43:49 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:43:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Teams deal S > North > S AKQxx > H Tx > D Axx > C Qxx > > South > S T9 > H AKJ8x > D Kxxx > C Ax > > They precision and the bididng went as follows > S N > 1H 1S > 3D 3S** > 4S > > 1H 5+ hearts 11-15 > 1S 4+ spades 8+ points > 3D NF maximum natural > 3S** Agreed break in tempo. > > During the play the opps enquired if 3S was NF and was told by South > that it was. Result 4S +2. The opps cal the td > establish the BIT and say S cant bid 4S over a NF 3S bid having > already bid his hand. N may have a 6 card suit and 8 > points. The pause clearly demonstrated extras and allowed South > another bid having already descibed his hand in a very > narrow range. > > The Td ruled 3S+3 > > The Ac reverted the score back saying S is entitled to bid over 3S > even NF if he wishes. > > Soooo "The pause clearly demonstrated extras" - I'm usually very sharp in enforcing that some LA's are "demonstrably suggested", even if many people disagree. But in this case it is too much for me. Hesitations often suggest extras, but not always. Suggesting 4S are two possibilities - N thought of bidding game or was unsure if 3S is forcing. The latter is improbable although the TD should investigate the partnership experience to check whether they are having this kind of mix-ups frequently. Suggesting pass are two possibilities - N thought of passing 3D, N has extras, but poor spades and thought of bidding 3NT (then pass and 3NT are suggested). Possibly suggesting pass (but it depends on the agreements of NS) - N thought of NF 3H (but some may play this as forcing, although rather in the systems where 3D shows 5), N thought of INV 4D (but some may play it as a slam try). To sum it up - were I sitting South I would have no idea what partner's problem is. Especially when 3H and 4D are NF, then it is much more probable that 4S is a poor choice. Assuming that 3S is NF, 4S will work best if partner has a good suit, his outside strength is of second importance. And with such hand partner would bid 3S faster. Soooo, I agree with AC that the result should stand, although I don't know the reasons for their decision. If it was "not demonstrably suggested" than fine, if it was "no LA" than fire the AC and next time choose sane bridge players, not psychos. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 14 05:10:42 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 05:10:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''' > > > In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds > the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player > receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from > among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the > only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. You surprise me Grattan. Your interpretation results inevitably in the following conclusions: - the player may use UI to remember his system (he would claim that his call was not based on UI, UI only helped him to remember the system, knowledge of his own system is AI to him and his choice has no LA according to that system) - the player may use UI to alert or explain partner's calls (usually senseless, but imaginative person may try to gain something, e.g. it is one of the bases of the dWS) - the player may use UI when enforcing some choices given by the laws: ex. 1 - declarer has an option to forbid or force a spade lead from his LHO. Dummy says: "forbid the lead, because...". Yes, I know, there is another infraction here, by according to your interpretation the declarer *is allowed* to forbid the lead, because action of forbidding is not a call or play. ex. 2 - declarer has an option to choose which MPC should he order to play. He hears a similar remark from dummy or peeks deliberately into the second defender's hand and now orders one of the cards. Again, there are other infractions, but the declarer is allowed to use UI by your interpretation, ordering the card to be played by the opponent is not a call or play. ex. 3 - the player's RHO made an insufficient bid. The player is thinking whether to accept this, but his partner says: "do not accept, allow him to correct because I have a great penalty double". And again, accepting or not is not a call or play so he is free to use UI. Of course UI may restrict his bidding, but if he has no LA to making a negative double? (for now these are enough, although I may present more) In my examples UI was transmitted egregiously, but imagine much more delicate transmitions or, what's worse, that the player overheard something from the other table. Then you would have no law to adjust the score or punish the player. Now, you know the laws hundred times better than me. I'm in no position to quarrel with you. But don't you think that such interpretation, which results in the above, is not necessarily wise? Isn't it better to understand L16 in a way I always understood it: "The player is not allowed UI for *any* purpose, *except* when performing the duties enforced on him explicitly by the laws". In practice it would contain L16B1, L73C, L20F4 and L20F5(b). Please, if you happen to be so gracious as to answer my deliberations, do not repeat what does the L16 state. I'm capable of reading it myself. My examples show that something is missing, especially the first one, because it is a common situation and to my knowledge the ruling practice was always such that you are not allowed to remember your system after receiving UI from the partner. Regards Maciej From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Dec 14 08:25:02 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:25:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: Message-ID: <66406F0EB10143518ACF691F405B7618@MARVLAPTOP> Karel wrote: > During the play the opps enquired if 3S was NF and was told by > South > that it was. Result 4S +2. The opps cal the td > establish the BIT Why are they calling the TD? The correct procedure is to "reserve the right to summon the Director later." If the opponents deny the BIT, then it is *their* responsibility to summon the Director immediately. Presumably failure to do so jeopardizes a later successful denial of the BIT. Law 16 B2. That's assuming the RA does not exercise the option of prohibiting this procedure, as the ACBL did in the 1997 Laws (but not in the 2007 Laws). Has any RA done this? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Dec 14 10:40:40 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 10:40:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4944D498.8090304@t-online.de> Hello Maciej, Bystry schrieb: > Hi, > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "We desire truth and find within >> ourselves only uncertainty." >> [Pascal] >> > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds >> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player >> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from >> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the >> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. > > You surprise me Grattan. Your interpretation results inevitably in the > following conclusions: > > - the player may use UI to remember his system (he would claim that his call > was not based on UI, UI only helped him to remember the system, knowledge of > his own system is AI to him and his choice has no LA according to that > system) he may use it to remember his system, but it will not help him, as he is not allowed to base a call on this UI, which is what matters. > > - the player may use UI to alert or explain partner's calls (usually > senseless, but imaginative person may try to gain something, e.g. it is one > of the bases of the dWS) He may not only use it, he is _required_ to do so if partner is right, as the laws require him to explain his system correctly. dWs does not come into it here. Here the player has to explain correctly while continuing to bid according to his original view of the system. > > - the player may use UI when enforcing some choices given by the laws: > > ex. 1 - declarer has an option to forbid or force a spade lead from his LHO. > Dummy says: "forbid the lead, because...". Yes, I know, there is another > infraction here, by according to your interpretation the declarer *is > allowed* to forbid the lead, because action of forbidding is not a call or > play. Since there is another infraction the TD should have no problem to change the score if declarer follows dummy's suggestion (and it is not completely clear to do so). > > ex. 2 - declarer has an option to choose which MPC should he order to play. > He hears a similar remark from dummy or peeks deliberately into the second > defender's hand and now orders one of the cards. Again, there are other > infractions, but the declarer is allowed to use UI by your interpretation, > ordering the card to be played by the opponent is not a call or play. So he is allowed to use the UI. Big deal. Much good will it do him after being drawn and quartered by the TD. Have a look at 12A1 if everything else fails.... > > ex. 3 - the player's RHO made an insufficient bid. The player is thinking > whether to accept this, but his partner says: "do not accept, allow him to > correct because I have a great penalty double". And again, accepting or not > is not a call or play so he is free to use UI. Of course UI may restrict his > bidding, but if he has no LA to making a negative double? If he has no LA, what is he thinking about? And if he has a LA, see 12A1. > > (for now these are enough, although I may present more) > > In my examples UI was transmitted egregiously, but imagine much more > delicate transmitions or, what's worse, that the player overheard something > from the other table. Then you would have no law to adjust the score or > punish the player. Have a look at 16C1 and 16C2. If the player violates C1 no one will ever know ( he either does not know his obligations or it is time to use the dirty c-word....), if he summons the TD 16C2 will be used and I see no further problem. > > Now, you know the laws hundred times better than me. I'm in no position to > quarrel with you. But don't you think that such interpretation, which > results in the above, What is that result? Lots of corrected scores, heaps of PPs. So what? > is not necessarily wise? Isn't it better to understand > L16 in a way I always understood it: > > "The player is not allowed UI for *any* purpose, *except* when performing > the duties enforced on him explicitly by the laws". I am not through with thinking about that statement, but it seems to me that it is not _necessary_ , as the laws handle all those cases well enough. I see no problem with the laws as they are. Your wording may be sufficient, and if so it were more concise and easier to understand than the current version, but I have to think about that some more. Best regards Matthias > > In practice it would contain L16B1, L73C, L20F4 and L20F5(b). > > Please, if you happen to be so gracious as to answer my deliberations, do > not repeat what does the L16 state. I'm capable of reading it myself. My > examples show that something is missing, especially the first one, because > it is a common situation and to my knowledge the ruling practice was always > such that you are not allowed to remember your system after receiving UI > from the partner. > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 14 11:34:41 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:34:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4944E141.60007@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > +=+ Robert Frick asked: > " It seems to be plain English that you are using the UI to > give the opponents the proper explanation. Without the UI you > couldn't give that explanation. Are you saying that the law has a > different meaning of "use"?" > In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds > the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player > receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from > among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the > only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. > When an opponent summons the Director as Law 16B3 > requires, the Director determines whether an infraction of law has > resulted in an advantage for the offender. The Director considers > whether the player has infracted the law by choosing from among > logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been > suggested over another by the extraneous information. This is the > action that is prohibited. Robert creates his own imaginative law > when he suggests that the law prohibits other uses by the player > of the extraneous information made available to him by partner. > I arrive at this view simply by reading what the law says. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Grattan, just to make one thing absolutely clear: when you speak about logical alternatives, you are only talking about calls and plays? Nothing else? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 14 11:47:09 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:47:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4944E42D.3020607@skynet.be> Hello Maciej, great contribution! Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "We desire truth and find within >> ourselves only uncertainty." >> [Pascal] >> > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds >> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player >> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from >> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the >> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. > > You surprise me Grattan. Your interpretation results inevitably in the > following conclusions: > > - the player may use UI to remember his system (he would claim that his call > was not based on UI, UI only helped him to remember the system, knowledge of > his own system is AI to him and his choice has no LA according to that > system) > Yes, he may use the UI to remember what his system really is, but he may not use that same UI to choose a call, even when he now knows his system. This is not anything new. > - the player may use UI to alert or explain partner's calls (usually > senseless, but imaginative person may try to gain something, e.g. it is one > of the bases of the dWS) > Why is this so bad? Hinausinterpretieren! Maciej is saying: "If this is the correct interpretation, then Herman has a point, so this cannot be the correct interpretation." Surely even my staunchest opponents will see that this is completely wrong, as an argument. > - the player may use UI when enforcing some choices given by the laws: > Very good point here, though, Maciej! Congratulations. > ex. 1 - declarer has an option to forbid or force a spade lead from his LHO. > Dummy says: "forbid the lead, because...". Yes, I know, there is another > infraction here, by according to your interpretation the declarer *is > allowed* to forbid the lead, because action of forbidding is not a call or > play. > Indeed it is. And we'd be forced to rule on the infraction of the dummy, by some other route than L16. But those routes are available! L10C2 does not specify a penalty, but L12A1 gives the TD the power to award an AS anyway. But since there is no L16 restriction, this could be a weighted score, containing some of the suggested action. Which is not what we want. This indeed is a hole in the laws that needs stopping. > ex. 2 - declarer has an option to choose which MPC should he order to play. > He hears a similar remark from dummy or peeks deliberately into the second > defender's hand and now orders one of the cards. Again, there are other > infractions, but the declarer is allowed to use UI by your interpretation, > ordering the card to be played by the opponent is not a call or play. > indeed. > ex. 3 - the player's RHO made an insufficient bid. The player is thinking > whether to accept this, but his partner says: "do not accept, allow him to > correct because I have a great penalty double". And again, accepting or not > is not a call or play so he is free to use UI. Of course UI may restrict his > bidding, but if he has no LA to making a negative double? > > (for now these are enough, although I may present more) > > In my examples UI was transmitted egregiously, but imagine much more > delicate transmitions or, what's worse, that the player overheard something > from the other table. Then you would have no law to adjust the score or > punish the player. > Yes, you do have a point. But what is the point? Is the point that the interpretation must be wrong, or that the laws contain a hole? > Now, you know the laws hundred times better than me. I'm in no position to > quarrel with you. But don't you think that such interpretation, which > results in the above, is not necessarily wise? Isn't it better to understand > L16 in a way I always understood it: > > "The player is not allowed UI for *any* purpose, *except* when performing > the duties enforced on him explicitly by the laws". > But don't you see, Maciej, that you are writing a law that apparently says. "Whatever Maciej thinks the law means, it does, and whatever Herman thinks the law means, it doesn't?". If you want the law to mean what you say, then you should explicitely list those things that are affected actions and those that are not. A general "except when performing the duties" can not do! > In practice it would contain L16B1, L73C, L20F4 and L20F5(b). > > Please, if you happen to be so gracious as to answer my deliberations, do > not repeat what does the L16 state. I'm capable of reading it myself. My > examples show that something is missing, especially the first one, because > it is a common situation and to my knowledge the ruling practice was always > such that you are not allowed to remember your system after receiving UI > from the partner. > Well, especially that first one is easy to solve, since the player cannot take an "action" (a call) that is suggested. > Regards > > Maciej > > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 14 11:51:37 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 11:51:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4944E539.3080301@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 05:54:26 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> Not a successful day. The cameras weren't working in Scotland, the Holy >>> Grail search team found nothing (though so far they have only checked >>> Long >>> Island), and it seems like I am going backwards on this. >>> >>> Grattan pointed me to L16B3 (offlist), which clearly suggests that L16B >>> is >>> about actions, not just calls and plays. So the only suggested >>> explanation >>> contributed to me -- that L16B is about just calls and plays & L73C >>> should >>> be read as the same even though it doesn't say so -- looks even worse >>> than >>> I thought. >>> >> This is simply ridiculous. >> >> L16B1a clearly says "information that may suggest a call or play". >> Afterwards, there is only mention of "such information". To suggest that >> the words "action" later is meant to encompass more than what is written >> in the first law, just because it is not always repeated "call or play", >> is simply putting into the laws an intention that was never there. >> >> If this interpretation is written down by the WBF, then I'll prove in my >> very first tournament that bridge becomes unplayable. I'll hand out PPs >> for use of UI that will turn hairs white on all heads, including Kojak's. >> >> Herman. > > Hi Herman. Thanks for answering. No one is talking about how to make > director rulings. This is just my curiosity about if this director ruling > can be derived from the laws in the lawbook (and WBFLC rulings too). > > Roughly, you are saying that L16 applies only to calls and plays. That > would solve the problem (as L20/40/75 would now be the only relevant law > governing choice of explanations). > > But it raises questions. There is a reference to "action" in L16B3. How > are you interpreting this? Next, are you using that same definition for > all uses of the term "action" in the laws? And if not, how do you > interpret the use of the word "act" in L75A? > > How are you dispensing with L73C? You do not mention it in your answer. > > Bonus question. Other parts of the laws refer to calls and plays. Do you > always restrict these laws to calls and plays, or do you sometimes > generalize to all actions (or not all actions but more than just calls and > plays)? > I'll answer all these in one go. I believe that when the lawmakers chose to write "calls and plays" just once, and "actions" every time afterwards, that they meant "actions" to be a synonym for "calls and plays", which is so terribly long. Maybe they should have made this more clear, but then the process of de-Kaplanizing the text is not yet completely done. As to L73C, "taking any advantage" seems to me the same thing. He may not, in any manner, use the UI to make an advantageous call or play. Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 14 12:34:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:34:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> <4944D498.8090304@t-online.de> Message-ID: <02bd01c95ddf$ec573c40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Hello Maciej, Hello, > > - the player may use UI to remember his system (he would claim that his call > > was not based on UI, UI only helped him to remember the system, knowledge of > > his own system is AI to him and his choice has no LA according to that > > system) > > he may use it to remember his system, but it will not help him, as he is > not allowed to base a call on this UI, which is what matters. It is not so simple. Your system is AI to you. You get to remember your system with the help of UI, but L16 covers only calls and plays. So (seemingly) you are allowed to use UI to remember your system. UI demonstrably suggests something, but your partner's call (AI) suggests the same and then you have no LA to make your systemic call. You may frown at this show of lawyering but you won't find legal arguments against it using only L16. Now, you are actually right, but it is stated in L75A, which points to L73C, not to L16. That's the crux of the matter. Grattan asserted: [Grattan] In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. [/Grattan] And in my opinion that can't be correct. Look at L73C: [L73C] C. 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. [/L73C] So *this* is the Law which covers my examples, not L16. "Any advantage" may mean everything. But what if L73C is broken by the player? Yes, he can get a PP. But what with rectification of damage? We have L73F: [L73F] F. Violation of Proprieties When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C). [/L73F] First we have this sentence - "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent", but then it follows with irrelevant to our case phrases and ends with - "the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)". I don't know whether the statements beginning with "if" are only a detailed example of the violation and we can join the first and the last phrase, or it has to be read as a whole. If former then it proves that every use of UI may result in an adjusted score. If latter then we have L73C alone and we can only hand a PP to the offenders, all the possible damage may be rectified only by the use of L12A1 (but still may). > > is not necessarily wise? Isn't it better to understand > > L16 in a way I always understood it: > > > > "The player is not allowed UI for *any* purpose, *except* when performing > > the duties enforced on him explicitly by the laws". > > I am not through with thinking about that statement, but it seems to me > that it is not _necessary_ , as the laws handle all those cases well enough. "Necessary" is in the eye of the beholder. This single phrase covers all the troubles with usage of UI. No reason to dwell in "actions", "calls", "plays" etc. No reason for L75A. Now, I'm not sure that I didn't omit something important. I'm not an expert in bridge laws. But if there are no obvious flaws, such definition would have important advantages - short, simple, clear, easy to understand, not subject to different interpretations. > I see no problem with the laws as they are. Your wording may be > sufficient, and if so it were more concise and easier to understand than > the current version, but I have to think about that some more. > > Best regards > Matthias Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 14 14:38:06 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 08:38:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:10:42 -0500, Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "We desire truth and find within >> ourselves only uncertainty." >> [Pascal] >> > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds >> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player >> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from >> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the >> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. > > You surprise me Grattan. Your interpretation results inevitably in the > following conclusions: > > - the player may use UI to remember his system (he would claim that his > call > was not based on UI, UI only helped him to remember the system, > knowledge of > his own system is AI to him and his choice has no LA according to that > system) > > - the player may use UI to alert or explain partner's calls (usually > senseless, but imaginative person may try to gain something, e.g. it is > one > of the bases of the dWS) > > - the player may use UI when enforcing some choices given by the laws: > > ex. 1 - declarer has an option to forbid or force a spade lead from his > LHO. > Dummy says: "forbid the lead, because...". Yes, I know, there is another > infraction here, by according to your interpretation the declarer *is > allowed* to forbid the lead, because action of forbidding is not a call > or > play. > > ex. 2 - declarer has an option to choose which MPC should he order to > play. > He hears a similar remark from dummy or peeks deliberately into the > second > defender's hand and now orders one of the cards. Again, there are other > infractions, but the declarer is allowed to use UI by your > interpretation, > ordering the card to be played by the opponent is not a call or play. > > ex. 3 - the player's RHO made an insufficient bid. The player is thinking > whether to accept this, but his partner says: "do not accept, allow him > to > correct because I have a great penalty double". And again, accepting or > not > is not a call or play so he is free to use UI. Of course UI may restrict > his > bidding, but if he has no LA to making a negative double? > > (for now these are enough, although I may present more) > > In my examples UI was transmitted egregiously, but imagine much more > delicate transmitions or, what's worse, that the player overheard > something > from the other table. Then you would have no law to adjust the score or > punish the player. > > Now, you know the laws hundred times better than me. I'm in no position > to > quarrel with you. But don't you think that such interpretation, which > results in the above, is not necessarily wise? Isn't it better to > understand > L16 in a way I always understood it: > > "The player is not allowed UI for *any* purpose, *except* when performing > the duties enforced on him explicitly by the laws". > > In practice it would contain L16B1, L73C, L20F4 and L20F5(b). > > Please, if you happen to be so gracious as to answer my deliberations, do > not repeat what does the L16 state. I'm capable of reading it myself. My > examples show that something is missing, especially the first one, > because > it is a common situation and to my knowledge the ruling practice was > always > such that you are not allowed to remember your system after receiving UI > from the partner. Someone thinking about the UI laws. I thought it more likely to find the Loch Ness monster. Hmmm, let me try too. You call for a card from dummy. Dummy hesitates and plays the card. Hesitations are legal, right? That wakes you up to how the hand should be played. You now are barred from making any play suggested by the UI. So you claim instead. The WBFLC minutes pretty clearly imply (IMO) that a claim is not a play, not that I agree with that opinion. Again, I am not talking about what players or directors do or should do. I am only discussing the laws. If L16 and L73 apply only to calls and plays... From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 14 20:40:08 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:40:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred><001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <003101c95e28$7ee3f060$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:10:42 -0500, Bystry wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "We desire truth and find within >>> ourselves only uncertainty." >>> [Pascal] >>> >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds >>> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player >>> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from >>> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >>> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the >>> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. >> >> You surprise me Grattan. >> +=+ We play the game according to its rules, as set out in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and regulations authorized by the laws. If what I have written is not correct you will no doubt quote the Law that says so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 14 20:45:24 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 19:45:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4944E141.60007@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003201c95e28$7f290fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "We desire truth and find within >> ourselves only uncertainty." >> [Pascal] >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> +=+ Robert Frick asked: >> " It seems to be plain English that you are using the UI to >> give the opponents the proper explanation. Without the UI you >> couldn't give that explanation. Are you saying that the law has a >> different meaning of "use"?" >> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds >> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player >> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from >> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the >> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. >> When an opponent summons the Director as Law 16B3 >> requires, the Director determines whether an infraction of law has >> resulted in an advantage for the offender. The Director considers >> whether the player has infracted the law by choosing from among >> logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over another by the extraneous information. This is the >> action that is prohibited. Robert creates his own imaginative law >> when he suggests that the law prohibits other uses by the player >> of the extraneous information made available to him by partner. >> I arrive at this view simply by reading what the law says. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Grattan, just to make one thing absolutely clear: > when you speak about logical alternatives, you are only talking about > calls and plays? Nothing else? > > Herman. > +=+ It is not I who speaks. It is the law book. Law 16B1 is quite clear about it. If Robert wishes to show that I am wrong he must quote the law that says so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 14 22:14:57 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:14:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred><001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> <003101c95e28$7ee3f060$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001301c95e31$04ae25a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 1:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > > > > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 23:10:42 -0500, Bystry wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >>> Grattan Endicott >>> also >>> ************************************ > >>> "We desire truth and find within > >>> ourselves only uncertainty." > >>> [Pascal] > >>> > >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > >>> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds > >>> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player > >>> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from > >>> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been > >>> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the > >>> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. > >> > >> You surprise me Grattan. > >> > +=+ We play the game according to its rules, as set out in the Laws of > Duplicate Bridge and regulations authorized by the laws. If what I have > written is not correct you will no doubt quote the Law that says so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ L75A, L73C. "Using UI" is certainly a subset of "taking any advantage from that UI". Please read my answer to Matthias. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 14 22:30:42 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:30:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> <4944E42D.3020607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001f01c95e33$37f95540$15844c59@chello.pl> > Hello Maciej, great contribution! Hello, > Yes, he may use the UI to remember what his system really is, but he may > not use that same UI to choose a call, even when he now knows his > system. This is not anything new. If he is allowed to remember his system then he won't have any LA to the systemic action. To impose some other call on him you have to disallow him to remember his system. [about dWS] Sorry, I don't want to engage again in this discussion. You may answer my last email on this topic if you wish so. > > In my examples UI was transmitted egregiously, but imagine much more > > delicate transmitions or, what's worse, that the player overheard something > > from the other table. Then you would have no law to adjust the score or > > punish the player. > > > > Yes, you do have a point. > > But what is the point? Is the point that the interpretation must be > wrong, or that the laws contain a hole? My point is that, contrary to Grattan's statement, L16 does not cover many situations in which we are not allowed to use UI. L75A covers remembering system and it is connected with L73C, which says "careful avoid *any advantage* from that UI". > > "The player is not allowed UI for *any* purpose, *except* when performing > > the duties enforced on him explicitly by the laws". > > > > But don't you see, Maciej, that you are writing a law that apparently > says. "Whatever Maciej thinks the law means, it does, and whatever > Herman thinks the law means, it doesn't?". It has nothing in common with Maciej or Herman. I deliberately marked out the words "any" and "except". > If you want the law to mean what you say, then you should explicitely > list those things that are affected actions and those that are not. A > general "except when performing the duties" can not do! You write something like this, and you don't bother to look just beneath: > > In practice it would contain L16B1, L73C, L20F4 and L20F5(b). Add this list at the end of my "law", correct me if I overlooked anything and I see no ambiguity even for the most fervent bridge lawyer. > Well, especially that first one is easy to solve, since the player > cannot take an "action" (a call) that is suggested. No, he cannot make a suggested call provided that he has any non-suggested LA's. There is no LA to make a systemic call. > Herman. Regards Maciej From svenpran at online.no Sun Dec 14 23:09:22 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:09:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <001301c95e31$04ae25a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred><001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> <003101c95e28$7ee3f060$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c95e31$04ae25a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000001c95e38$9efc6390$dcf52ab0$@no> On Behalf Of Bystry > > +=+ We play the game according to its rules, as set out in the Laws of > > Duplicate Bridge and regulations authorized by the laws. If what I have > > written is not correct you will no doubt quote the Law that says so. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > L75A, L73C. "Using UI" is certainly a subset of "taking any advantage from > that UI". Please read my answer to Matthias. "A" is a subset of "B" if every "A" is also "B" but not every "B" is also "A". You claim that one cannot "use UI" without also "taking any advantage from that UI". I have a strong feeling that the correct statement is: You cannot take advantage of UI without using that UI so "taking advantage from UI".is actually a subset of "Using that UI"? A supporting example is a player that "uses UI" by (to his disadvantage) selecting a logical alternative not suggested by the UI. I have noticed what to me seems strange: It is a fact that bridge originated as a game for Gentlemen (and fair ladies) who instinctively knew what was correct. The original laws of bridge were rather simple, but they were sufficient. Nobody needed telling a Gentleman how to behave. They knew perfectly well what made the game "fair". Can we say the same today? Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 14 23:25:06 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:25:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? In-Reply-To: <003201c95e28$7f290fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49439462.9000100@skynet.be> <00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <4944E141.60007@skynet.be> <003201c95e28$7f290fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:45:24 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 10:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? > > >> Grattan wrote: >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "We desire truth and find within >>> ourselves only uncertainty." >>> [Pascal] >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> +=+ Robert Frick asked: >>> " It seems to be plain English that you are using the UI to >>> give the opponents the proper explanation. Without the UI you >>> couldn't give that explanation. Are you saying that the law has a >>> different meaning of "use"?" >>> In reply to this I asked where it is in the laws that he finds >>> the word 'use'. I then drew attention to the fact that when a player >>> receives UI from partner what the law forbids is choosing "from >>> among logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >>> suggested over another by the extraneous information". This is the >>> only use of the information that is prohibited by the laws. >>> When an opponent summons the Director as Law 16B3 >>> requires, the Director determines whether an infraction of law has >>> resulted in an advantage for the offender. The Director considers >>> whether the player has infracted the law by choosing from among >>> logical alternatives one that could demonstrably have been >>> suggested over another by the extraneous information. This is the >>> action that is prohibited. Robert creates his own imaginative law >>> when he suggests that the law prohibits other uses by the player >>> of the extraneous information made available to him by partner. >>> I arrive at this view simply by reading what the law says. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> Grattan, just to make one thing absolutely clear: >> when you speak about logical alternatives, you are only talking about >> calls and plays? Nothing else? >> >> Herman. >> > +=+ It is not I who speaks. It is the law book. Law 16B1 is quite clear > about it. If Robert wishes to show that I am wrong he must quote the > law that says so. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I believe Grattan has accurately quoted the lawbook. I am not sure he has done anything else or intends to do anything else, including expressing any opinions about potential ambiguities or inconsistencies in the current laws. This is a very reasonable and responsible role for him to take, given his position. Bob Longer version: I find no clear statement by him about whether Law 16B applies to just calls and plays or to all actions. I find no statement about the interpretation or use of Law 73. And on and on. When I attempt to take any of his quotations of the lawbook and turn them into answers to my question of what the laws say about my apparent conflict between UI and L20/40/75, I am accused -- fairly -- of being imaginative. It is like trying to find shapes in the clouds, and I think I was wrong to try. I am not sure he wants to be providing interpretations of the laws. I cannot recall him suggesting any rulings a director would make in the face of potential ambiguities or inconsistencies in the laws. It apparently is his goal only to quote the existing law with existing WBFLC opinions and consider future WBFLC future opinions. Am I finally getting it right? If I am wrong, feel free to say what is right. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 14 23:59:05 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:59:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? References: <000601c95bc0$75c84f40$0302a8c0@Mildred><49439462.9000100@skynet.be><00b501c95d15$3eb2c750$0302a8c0@Mildred><001601c95d95$d1d139b0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000d01c95da1$eea86160$15844c59@chello.pl> <003101c95e28$7ee3f060$0302a8c0@Mildred><001301c95e31$04ae25a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c95e38$9efc6390$dcf52ab0$@no> Message-ID: <007b01c95e3f$90629460$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > L75A, L73C. "Using UI" is certainly a subset of "taking any advantage from > > that UI". Please read my answer to Matthias. > > "A" is a subset of "B" if every "A" is also "B" but not every "B" is also > "A". Oops, you are right, it should be reversed - "taking any advantage from that UI" is a subset of "using UI". Thanks for the correction. But I'm sure you understand what did I have in mind. Grattan claims that the only usage forbidden by the laws is specified by L16. And that is false because of L73C (and L75A). > I have noticed what to me seems strange: It is a fact that bridge originated > as a game for Gentlemen (and fair ladies) who instinctively knew what was > correct. The original laws of bridge were rather simple, but they were > sufficient. Nobody needed telling a Gentleman how to behave. They knew > perfectly well what made the game "fair". > > Can we say the same today? If you have in mind behavior at the table and the presence of real cheats - I may agree. At first bridge was played only by a relatively small group of people, it was an entertainment mainly for the elite. When it became more popular - more popular, ordinary behaviors appeared. And when money appeared in bridge, more people started to cheat. But if you have in mind using UI (and some other things like disclosure) - I can only say "Hell, no". Nowadays bridge is light-years departed from the past, in the positive sense. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 15 05:05:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:05:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c95e28$7ee3f060$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ We play the game according to its rules, as set out in the Laws of Duplicate Bridge and regulations authorized by the laws. If what I have written is not correct you will no doubt quote the Law that says so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: If there is an anomaly in the Laws relevant to the topic of this thread (which I doubt), then it seems to me that the anomaly relates to the interaction of these Laws below: 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." Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." Law 75 prologue: "After a misleading explanation has been given to opponents the responsibilities of the players (and the Director) are as illustrated by the consequences of this following example: North has opened 1NT and South, who holds a weak hand with long diamonds, has bid 2D, intending to sign off; North explains, however, in answer to West's inquiry, that South's bid is strong and artificial, asking for major suits." Law 75A: "Whether or not North's explanation is a correct statement of partnership agreement, South, having heard North's explanation, knows that his own 2D bid has been misinterpreted. This knowledge is "unauthorised information" (see Law 16A), so South must be careful to avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information (see Law 73C). (If he does, the Director shall award an adjusted score.) For instance, if North rebids two no trump, South has the unauthorised information that this bid merely denies a four- card holding in either major suit; but South's responsibility is to act as though North had made a strong game try opposite a weak response, showing maximum values." Richard Hills: Reading these Laws together suggests that your pre-agreed system is only sometimes authorised information to you (Law 16A1(d)), since other Laws may "preclude" you using your pre-agreed system, such as Laws 40C3(a) and 75A. So far. so good. However..... Law 16B1(b): "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and **using the methods of the partnership**, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it." Richard Hills: I suggest that in order for Law 16B1(b) to be consistent with Law 75A, the phrase "using the methods of the partnership" necessarily needs to be interpreted as "using what the player Lawfully believes are the methods of the partnership". For example, if a player began the auction in the mistaken belief that he was playing the Symmetric Relay system, but was unLawfully reminded (Law 40C3(a) / Law 75A) that he was actually playing the Forcing Pass Relay system, that player's logical alternatives for the rest of the auction are determined by the fantasy non-partnership method of Symmetric Relay, not the actual partnership method of Forcing Pass Relay. What's the problem? President Eisenhower (as quoted by President Kennedy, 8th April 1962): "No _easy_ problems ever come to the president of the United States. If they are easy to solve, someone else has solved them." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mon Dec 15 06:00:27 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 05:00:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4945E46B.7050708@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] I suggest that in order for Law 16B1(b) to be consistent with Law 75A, the phrase "using the methods of the partnership" necessarily needs to be interpreted as "using what the player Lawfully believes are the methods of the partnership". For example, if a player began the auction in the mistaken belief that he was playing the Symmetric Relay system, but was unLawfully reminded (Law 40C3(a) / Law 75A) that he was actually playing the Forcing Pass Relay system, that player's logical alternatives for the rest of the auction are determined by the fantasy non-partnership method of Symmetric Relay, not the actual partnership method of Forcing Pass Relay. What's the problem? [Nigel] Thank you Richard :) As with so much other Bridge Legislation, problems evaporate if you guess the intentions of the rule-makers and ignore what they write :) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 15 06:07:17 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:07:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4945E46B.7050708@talktalk.net> References: <4945E46B.7050708@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081215160340.01dab218@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 04:00 PM 15/12/2008, you wrote: >[richard.hills] >I suggest that in order for Law 16B1(b) to be consistent with Law 75A, the >phrase "using the methods of the partnership" necessarily needs to be >interpreted as "using what the player Lawfully believes are the methods of >the partnership". > >For example, if a player began the auction in the mistaken belief that he >was playing the Symmetric Relay system, but was unLawfully reminded (Law >40C3(a) / Law 75A) that he was actually playing the Forcing Pass Relay >system, that player's logical alternatives for the rest of the auction are >determined by the fantasy non-partnership method of Symmetric Relay, not >the actual partnership method of Forcing Pass Relay. > >What's the problem? > >[Nigel] > >Thank you Richard :) As with so much other Bridge Legislation, problems >evaporate if you guess the intentions of the rule-makers and ignore what >they write :) > It is also helpful to take note of black and white interpretations (in writing) by those who have been authorised to give them. I noted somewhere that an appendix by ton is in the pipeline. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Dec 15 12:38:41 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:38:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: > > Teams deal S > > North > > S AKQxx > > H Tx > > D Axx > > C Qxx > > > > South > > S T9 > > H AKJ8x > > D Kxxx > > C Ax > > > > They precision and the bididng went as follows > > S N > > 1H 1S > > 3D 3S** > > 4S > > > > 1H 5+ hearts 11-15 > > 1S 4+ spades 8+ points > > 3D NF maximum natural > > 3S** Agreed break in tempo. > > > > > Suggesting pass are two possibilities - N thought of passing 3D, N has > extras, but poor spades and thought of bidding 3NT (then pass and 3NT are > suggested). > > Possibly suggesting pass (but it depends on the agreements of NS) - N > thought of NF 3H (but some may play this as forcing, although rather in the > systems where 3D shows 5), N thought of INV 4D (but some may play it as a > slam try). 1H 1S 3D 14/15 points at least 9 cards in the reds NF (very accurate bid) Now I'd question the use of this bid as it puts severe strain on responder in numerous cases with spades or with a misfit (which will invariably cause a BIT) - but that is the way it was played. pass is to play 3H is preference 4H is to play These are easy so we can rule these out 4C as 4th suit GF, forcing 4D or 4S with 3, seems a logical continuation 4D is invitational (if you cant be sure bid 5D) Similarly if you are thinking about 3NT then bid it - pd has described their hand to a tee - its your call. So in all fairness any red suit or 3NT follow up is excluded and the fact responder did bid spades indicates a "spade" issue. 3S was according to opener NF. He has absolutely nothing extra which hasn't already been shown. So why 4S ? A smooth auction 1H 1S 3D 3S ?? is 4S clear cut ? Imo alot of people will pass. Infact imo the majority will pass. Could responder have been thinking about other things ... possible ... likely (imo not). It would seem that "knowledgable" laws opponents can gain here, while the vast majority - this will go unnoticed ? K. From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 15 13:29:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:29:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001f01c95eb0$c5d38ac0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > 1H 1S > 3D 14/15 points at least 9 cards in the reds NF (very accurate bid) > > Now I'd question the use of this bid as it puts severe strain on > responder in numerous cases with spades or with a misfit (which will > invariably cause a BIT) - but that is the way it was played. > > pass is to play > 3H is preference > 4H is to play > > These are easy so we can rule these out Why? We may (should) exclude 4H, but certainly not pass and 3H. > 4C as 4th suit GF, forcing 4D or 4S with 3, seems a logical continuation > 4D is invitational (if you cant be sure bid 5D) So 4D is still an option. > Similarly if you are thinking about 3NT then bid it - pd has described > their hand to a tee - its your call. It's not so easy. You may have some HCP, but need time to count possible tricks (contract will be stretched), appraise if one club stoper is enough etc. > So in all fairness any red suit or 3NT follow up is excluded and the > fact responder did bid spades indicates a "spade" issue. Sorry, for me this conclusion is completely false. Think about it - partner showed many cards in the reds, may have a spade void, bidding 4S will be very rare in this sequence. You are playing Precision, so partner's 1H is limited to 15 HCP. If you have good, long suit and no slam ambitions you could bid 4S at once. If you have too little to bid game at once, you bid 1S and after the partner showed good hand you bid 4S now. So what hand is left? Only relatively long, weak spades. And facing such hand 4S won't look well. No, for me 4S is more counter-suggested than suggested. Much more often partner will think whether to risk borderline 3NT, or will be making a decision whether to pass or bid 3H, or whether to make an 4D invitation or pass. Take such a hand for example: S KJT9xx H Jx D Qxx C xx All the decisions could be right - passing, bidding 3H, bidding 3S. Or another one: S Kxxxxx H Q D xx C KJxx 3NT? 3S? Pass? Or another: S KJxxxxx H x D xx C Qxx Here partner could think about 4S and the game is not great. > is 4S clear cut ? Imo alot of people will pass. Infact imo the > majority will pass. Could responder have been thinking about other > things ... possible ... likely (imo not). Pass is certainly a LA. 4S is barely a LA. But that doesn't change anything. Maybe S felt what was going on. The TD should investigate whether such misunderstandings happened earlier in that partnership. If yes, then for *this S* not passing could be demonstrably suggested because of the fear of playing a partscore in a slam hand. Don't expect me to decide on this point, I may only estimate bridge logic of this situation. > It would seem that "knowledgable" laws opponents can gain here, while > the vast majority - this will go unnoticed ? Sorry, I don't understand. There was a hesitation, there was a doubtful call. Even bunnies usually know to call a TD in such cases. And TD will make a ruling, whether one or both pairs are "knowledgable" laws opponents or "the vast majority" (whatever that means). Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 14:53:15 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:53:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4946614B.2050709@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : >>> Teams deal S >>> North >>> S AKQxx >>> H Tx >>> D Axx >>> C Qxx >>> >>> South >>> S T9 >>> H AKJ8x >>> D Kxxx >>> C Ax >>> >>> >> Suggesting pass are two possibilities - N thought of passing 3D, N has >> extras, but poor spades and thought of bidding 3NT (then pass and 3NT are >> suggested). >> >> Possibly suggesting pass (but it depends on the agreements of NS) - N >> thought of NF 3H (but some may play this as forcing, although rather in the >> systems where 3D shows 5), N thought of INV 4D (but some may play it as a >> slam try). >> > > > A smooth auction > > 1H 1S > 3D 3S > ?? > > is 4S clear cut ? Imo alot of people will pass. Infact imo the > majority will pass. Could responder have been thinking about other > things ... possible ... likely (imo not). > > It would seem that "knowledgable" laws opponents can gain here, while > the vast majority - this will go unnoticed ? > AG : I don't know much about this style. We're told 1S is strictly 8+ (presumably, 2S is weak, or 1NT followed by 2S, Churchill style). Let's start from there. First question : what's the meaning of 3S ? On seeing North's bid, one could imagine it was forcing - in which case no problem, of course. To the contrary, bidding 3NT would then be a "suggested LA", one to avoid, one of the most plausible explanations for the BIT being that partner has 3NT in sight. And bidding 4S is then spotless. Second question : assume 3S is NF (and that's surely not obvious, if you see North's hand). Is 4S "automatical enough" ? Trying to construct hands for North (8+ HCP, remember, and most probably 6 cards if passable), do nearly all of them provide a good 4S contract ? The worst I can imagine is something like Kxxxxx - x - Jx - KJxx. Since this makes game poor, I'd be tempted to say that 4S isn't the only LA. The fact that I would surely bid 4S, and several of us too, because I have so many high tricks and something in spades, is irrelevent, as I considered passing, and see definition of LA. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 14:57:49 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:57:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <001f01c95eb0$c5d38ac0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001f01c95eb0$c5d38ac0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4946625D.4030302@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > Take such a hand for example: > > S KJT9xx > H Jx > D Qxx > C xx > AG : partner won't have this hand for two reasons. First, it's too weak (I assume one would bid 2S). Second, we already own the 109 of spades. And if you substract them, surely the hand isn't worth 8+. > All the decisions could be right - passing, bidding 3H, bidding 3S. > > Or another one: > > S Kxxxxx > H Q > D xx > C KJxx > > 3NT? 3S? Pass? > > Or another: > > S KJxxxxx > H x > D xx > C Qxx > > Here partner could think about 4S and the game is not great. > > AG : once again, this hand won't arise if the system was correctly described. That doesn't change the conclusion - change the hand to KJxxxx - x - Qxx - Qxx. But it shows the classical error of ACs : considering alternatives in their own system in lieu of the pair's. Best regards Alain From henk at ripe.net Mon Dec 15 15:20:21 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:20:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML Message-ID: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Hi all, For the past 7 years, the BLML has been hosted on a machine operated by my employer. This originated in the time that hosting a machine (linux PC, connected to the Internet) wasn't that easily available for individuals. This has changed, there are now lots of companies who do this for a small fee. Therefore, the machine currently running the list will be shut down as of 31/3/2009. This leaves the question what we should do with the list: 1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. I currently have 2 offers, each in the 20 Euro (about 25 US$) per year range. That leaves the question who is going to pay for this. One option is to consider opening a paypal account for this. If all 327 subscribers pay 10 cents, that keeps the list running for 1.5 year. Another is to charge 0.1 cent for each posting. I'd actually make a profit out of this and it'd cost the top poster on the list about a euro/month. 2. Find another volunteer with resources to host this. It basically requires a PC with Internet access and sufficient technical knowledge to install/maintain a zone and the mailman and apache software. 3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is a good idea. Comments, suggestions, ideas are welcome. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Dec 15 15:37:31 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:37:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <49466BAB.3060709@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think you missed a fourth alternative, Henk, and that's to move the list to somewhere like Yahoogroups or Google groups. It's free, so no contributions needed. If you want to wash your hands of the list (option 2) then I'd be happy to set up a replacement, my wife already hosts three (I think) lists on Yahoogroups, one of them about five times the size of BLML. The day-to-day admin still only takes her half an hour or so a day. I'm willing to invest that sort of time if you don't have it. Brian. Henk Uijterwaal wrote: | Hi all, | | For the past 7 years, the BLML has been hosted on a machine operated by my | employer. This originated in the time that hosting a machine (linux PC, | connected to the Internet) wasn't that easily available for individuals. | This has changed, there are now lots of companies who do this for a small | fee. Therefore, the machine currently running the list will be shut down | as of 31/3/2009. | | This leaves the question what we should do with the list: | | 1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. I currently have | 2 offers, each in the 20 Euro (about 25 US$) per year range. That | leaves the question who is going to pay for this. One option is to | consider opening a paypal account for this. If all 327 subscribers pay | 10 cents, that keeps the list running for 1.5 year. Another is to | charge 0.1 cent for each posting. I'd actually make a profit out of | this and it'd cost the top poster on the list about a euro/month. | | 2. Find another volunteer with resources to host this. It basically | requires a PC with Internet access and sufficient technical knowledge | to install/maintain a zone and the mailman and apache software. | | 3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is a good | idea. | | Comments, suggestions, ideas are welcome. | | Henk | | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJRmurgLujL0lynd0RAo+KAJwKhoOQN9jGKOiGH/Ctkh1K5Di7EwCgg9Hp TLAr5oEj4PPDs+smDJcJIVw= =RADM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bbickford at charter.net Mon Dec 15 15:47:27 2008 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:47:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <49466BAB.3060709@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <02ff01c95ec4$0d5253f0$0fc5834b@D2GX7R11> I have no first hand knowledge, but I have been told that Yahoogroups is replete with viruses; can someone confirm? Cheers.....................................Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "brian" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The future of BLML > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > I think you missed a fourth alternative, Henk, and that's to move the > list to somewhere like Yahoogroups or Google groups. It's free, so no > contributions needed. If you want to wash your hands of the list > (option 2) then I'd be happy to set up a replacement, my wife already > hosts three (I think) lists on Yahoogroups, one of them about five > times the size of BLML. The day-to-day admin still only takes her half > an hour or so a day. I'm willing to invest that sort of time if you > don't have it. > > > Brian. > > > > Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > | Hi all, > | > | For the past 7 years, the BLML has been hosted on a machine operated > by my > | employer. This originated in the time that hosting a machine (linux PC, > | connected to the Internet) wasn't that easily available for individuals. > | This has changed, there are now lots of companies who do this for a > small > | fee. Therefore, the machine currently running the list will be shut > down > | as of 31/3/2009. > | > | This leaves the question what we should do with the list: > | > | 1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. I > currently have > | 2 offers, each in the 20 Euro (about 25 US$) per year range. That > | leaves the question who is going to pay for this. One option is to > | consider opening a paypal account for this. If all 327 > subscribers pay > | 10 cents, that keeps the list running for 1.5 year. Another is to > | charge 0.1 cent for each posting. I'd actually make a profit > out of > | this and it'd cost the top poster on the list about a euro/month. > | > | 2. Find another volunteer with resources to host this. It basically > | requires a PC with Internet access and sufficient technical > knowledge > | to install/maintain a zone and the mailman and apache software. > | > | 3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is > a good > | idea. > | > | Comments, suggestions, ideas are welcome. > | > | Henk > | > | > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD8DBQFJRmurgLujL0lynd0RAo+KAJwKhoOQN9jGKOiGH/Ctkh1K5Di7EwCgg9Hp > TLAr5oEj4PPDs+smDJcJIVw= > =RADM > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk at ripe.net Mon Dec 15 15:55:31 2008 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:55:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <49466BAB.3060709@meadows.pair.com> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <49466BAB.3060709@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <49466FE3.6080705@ripe.net> Hi, > I think you missed a fourth alternative, Henk, and that's to move the > list to somewhere like Yahoogroups or Google groups. It's free, so no > contributions needed. If you want to wash your hands of the list > (option 2) then I'd be happy to set up a replacement, my wife already > hosts three (I think) lists on Yahoogroups, one of them about five > times the size of BLML. The day-to-day admin still only takes her half > an hour or so a day. I'm willing to invest that sort of time if you > don't have it. That is indeed an option but it suffers from a number of problems: * It depends on others offering list services. If Yahoo drops this service, we'd have to find another location. One would also need to find a site to maintain the old archives. * If a Yahoo Group indeed takes 30 minutes/day to maintain, then this is about 29 minutes more than what I currently have to do with the mailman software. (Plus that mailman prompts me for actions needed from my side). * I've noticed that some yahoo lists are blacklisted by some ISP's (as there was too much spam coming from them). Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 15 16:01:50 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:01:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001f01c95eb0$c5d38ac0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4946625D.4030302@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c95ec6$0fae8180$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Bystry a ?crit : > Take such a hand for example: > > S KJT9xx > H Jx > D Qxx > C xx > AG : partner won't have this hand for two reasons. First, it's too weak (I assume one would bid 2S). Second, we already own the 109 of spades. And if you substract them, surely the hand isn't worth 8+. MB: Nitpicking. So add J of clubs or change HJ to HQ. Rearrange the placements of the honors. WTP? > All the decisions could be right - passing, bidding 3H, bidding 3S. > > Or another one: > > S Kxxxxx > H Q > D xx > C KJxx > > 3NT? 3S? Pass? > > Or another: > > S KJxxxxx > H x > D xx > C Qxx > > Here partner could think about 4S and the game is not great. > > AG : once again, this hand won't arise if the system was correctly described. MB: Why? They play something Precision-like. So basically 1S response should be in fact 8+. But that doesn't mean they have to play 2S as preemptive. And this hand has more playing strength than some 8 HCP. AG: That doesn't change the conclusion - change the hand to KJxxxx - x - Qxx - Qxx. But it shows the classical error of ACs : considering alternatives in their own system in lieu of the pair's. MB: You know as much about their system as me. And I don't think that the AC allowed the table result to stand because they judged 4S has no LA. That would be absurd. Regards Maciej From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Dec 15 16:15:01 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:15:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <02ff01c95ec4$0d5253f0$0fc5834b@D2GX7R11> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <49466BAB.3060709@meadows.pair.com> <02ff01c95ec4$0d5253f0$0fc5834b@D2GX7R11> Message-ID: <49467475.1000607@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bill Bickford wrote: | I have no first hand knowledge, but I have been told that Yahoogroups is | replete with viruses; can someone confirm? | Provided you set up the list to strip any and all attachments, there are no virus problems. If you're daft enough to set up a list which allows attachments, well, that's another story. Brian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJRnR0gLujL0lynd0RAngXAJ9T442Ki6Nqua+/7sqdXmdzAJQFDwCghegI kvqgBItDNc2f4qHhfaKR3Js= =OFqK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From brian at meadows.pair.com Mon Dec 15 16:26:48 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:26:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <49466FE3.6080705@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <49466BAB.3060709@meadows.pair.com> <49466FE3.6080705@ripe.net> Message-ID: <49467738.80706@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Henk Uijterwaal wrote: | Hi, | |> I think you missed a fourth alternative, Henk, and that's to move the |> list to somewhere like Yahoogroups or Google groups. It's free, so no |> contributions needed. If you want to wash your hands of the list |> (option 2) then I'd be happy to set up a replacement, my wife already |> hosts three (I think) lists on Yahoogroups, one of them about five |> times the size of BLML. The day-to-day admin still only takes her half |> an hour or so a day. I'm willing to invest that sort of time if you |> don't have it. | | That is indeed an option but it suffers from a number of problems: | | * It depends on others offering list services. If Yahoo drops this | service, we'd have to find another location. One would also need | to find a site to maintain the old archives. | Of course, although I think the chances of both Yahoo and Google suddenly deciding to drop the service are remote. Maybe Yahoo might, if taken over by Mickey$oft and if M$ has other ideas. | * If a Yahoo Group indeed takes 30 minutes/day to maintain, then | this is about 29 minutes more than what I currently have to do | with the mailman software. (Plus that mailman prompts me for | actions needed from my side). | Please remember, I said she runs at least three lists, and I know that at least one of them is around five times the size of BLML in terms of the number of subscribers. Pat also requires all new subscribers to write something to assure her that they're not just spammers when they ask to join, and moderates their first couple of postings as well. If you can do all that for three lists in a minute per day, well, you're obviously so good that you'll excuse my scepticism... | * I've noticed that some yahoo lists are blacklisted by some ISP's | (as there was too much spam coming from them). | I wasn't aware of that. Personally, I'd find a mailhost who didn't feel that they should decide what I did and didn't receive (try http://www.pair.com), I wouldn't dream of using my ISP's incoming mail services. However, if some people are stuck with shitty ISPs and no alternatives, well, they have my sympathies, but I really don't see that it should be a showstopper. Brian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJRnc4gLujL0lynd0RAmcBAJ9DSRLBHw+21Tb6i+wJWaQDFBw0sQCgqsBy 9VgmBBI2JNJeXffDaDT1Mao= =nVMg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Dec 15 16:30:39 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:30:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <4946614B.2050709@ulb.ac.be> References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4946614B.2050709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: > Second question : assume 3S is NF (and that's surely not obvious, if you > see North's hand). Is 4S "automatical enough" ? > Trying to construct hands for North (8+ HCP, remember, and most probably > 6 cards if passable), do nearly all of them provide a good 4S contract ? > The worst I can imagine is something like Kxxxxx - x - Jx - KJxx. > Since this makes game poor, I'd be tempted to say that 4S isn't the only > LA. > The fact that I would surely bid 4S, and several of us too, because I > have so many high tricks and something in spades, is irrelevent, as I > considered passing, and see definition of LA. > +++ This is exactly what it boils down to. It is pointless looking at the actual hand with an opening bid, when it is clear that the 3S bidder obviously thought 3S was forcing. Totally irrelevant. Equally constructing lots of hands where 4S makes is irrelevant. Is pass a LA opposite a NF 3S bid ? It is (and I'd argue not only a LA but a big favourite). So 4S shouldnt be allowed. Again you can argue responder was thinking about x, y & z ... indeed I'm postive he was thinking about something ... maybe he was hoping the competition would speed up because he was hungry ... Who cares. What is relevant is that his final choice of bids WILL reflect what it is he was thinking about. If he was worried about some red suit raise NF or F, pass or 3NT he wont bid any number of spades. Certainly if he has any game ambitions or invite he should realise that any NON game bid at this stage (after a clear BIT) will seriously compromise his already narrowly defined pd. Even with the hand what was the point of 3S? If pd has 0/1/2/3 spades 3NT will play just as well and maybe better than 4S, while 3S allows the possibility of a disastrous misunderstanding. The odds of a slam are poor why look ? K. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 15 16:58:47 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:58:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <25E8E98C-5021-4ED5-95F2-7D020D53150C@starpower.net> On Dec 15, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > For the past 7 years, the BLML has been hosted on a machine > operated by my > employer. This originated in the time that hosting a machine > (linux PC, > connected to the Internet) wasn't that easily available for > individuals. > This has changed, there are now lots of companies who do this for a > small > fee. Therefore, the machine currently running the list will be > shut down > as of 31/3/2009. > > This leaves the question what we should do with the list: > > 1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. I > currently have > 2 offers, each in the 20 Euro (about 25 US$) per year range. That > leaves the question who is going to pay for this. One option > is to > consider opening a paypal account for this. If all 327 > subscribers pay > 10 cents, that keeps the list running for 1.5 year. Another > is to > charge 0.1 cent for each posting. I'd actually make a profit > out of > this and it'd cost the top poster on the list about a euro/month. (1) One should get value for one's money, and the value we derive from BLML comes from reading what other folks have to say -- we already know what our own opinions are! A pay-to-post scheme would be counter-productive; although it would be nice to get rid of some of the dirty bathwater, we don't want to sacrifice the baby. We want to encourage lurkers to start posting, and oocasional posters to do more, not discourage them. (2) I am rather attached to BLML, but it will absolutely not be worth it to me, regardless of cost, if I have to establish a PayPal account, which I currently neither have nor want, just to stay with BLML (for one thing, I might actually have to look at those 4-5 spams per day reporting security problems with my imaginary PayPal account). If we go that route, I would urge Henk to accept checks in the mail, for the 10 cent fee plus a reasonable handling charge (perhaps 1000-2000% or so). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 17:30:00 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:30:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <001301c95ec6$0fae8180$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001f01c95eb0$c5d38ac0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4946625D.4030302@ulb.ac.be> <001301c95ec6$0fae8180$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49468608.5090409@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > Hi, > > Bystry a ?crit : > >> Take such a hand for example: >> >> S KJT9xx >> H Jx >> D Qxx >> C xx >> >> > AG : partner won't have this hand for two reasons. First, it's too weak > (I assume one would bid 2S). Second, we already own the 109 of spades. > And if you substract them, surely the hand isn't worth 8+. > > MB: Nitpicking. So add J of clubs or change HJ to HQ. Rearrange the > placements of the honors. WTP? > AG : I agree that 4S should not be allowed if 3S is indeed NF (which it probably isn't, or North has made a big error), unless they can prove it shows a good suit. But changing the HJ into HQ makes 4S playable. In fact, it proves pretty difficult to find a hand facing which 4S wouldn't be at least playable.However, I don't think this makes 4S obvious enough to be allowed (provided, again, that 3S is NF).. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 17:33:48 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:33:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4946614B.2050709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <494686EC.40006@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : > If he was worried about some red suit > raise NF or F, pass or 3NT he wont bid any number of spades. > Certainly if he has any game ambitions or invite he should realise > that any NON game bid at this stage (after a clear BIT) will seriously > compromise his already narrowly defined pd. > > Even with the hand what was the point of 3S? If pd has 0/1/2/3 spades > 3NT will play just as well and maybe better than 4S, while 3S allows > the possibility of a disastrous misunderstanding. The odds of a slam > are poor why look ? > AG : for all these reasons I think that 3S was indeed focring, or he wouldn't have biod it. Can anybody confirm or infirm based on incontestable information ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 17:38:40 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:38:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <25E8E98C-5021-4ED5-95F2-7D020D53150C@starpower.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <25E8E98C-5021-4ED5-95F2-7D020D53150C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49468810.5010106@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > > (2) I am rather attached to BLML, but it will absolutely not be worth > it to me, regardless of cost, if I have to establish a PayPal > account, which I currently neither have nor want, just to stay with > BLML (for one thing, I might actually have to look at those 4-5 spams > per day reporting security problems with my imaginary PayPal > account). AG : agree. There are indeed contributors that aren't paypalists. Why not ask one person from each country to collect money on his account and make one check ? For a very small sum per person, we could have enough for some years of maintenance. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 18:08:29 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:08:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> Trying to coordinate hunders of donations of 10 cents each sounds ridiculous. I have a much simplier idea... If Henk decidest that he wants to shift over a commercial provider, I am happy to send him $50 to cover the first couple years worth of fees. I trust that someone else will do the same in two years time. On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > For the past 7 years, the BLML has been hosted on a machine operated by my > employer. This originated in the time that hosting a machine (linux PC, > connected to the Internet) wasn't that easily available for individuals. > This has changed, there are now lots of companies who do this for a small > fee. Therefore, the machine currently running the list will be shut down > as of 31/3/2009. > > This leaves the question what we should do with the list: > > 1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. I currently have > 2 offers, each in the 20 Euro (about 25 US$) per year range. That > leaves the question who is going to pay for this. One option is to > consider opening a paypal account for this. If all 327 subscribers pay > 10 cents, that keeps the list running for 1.5 year. Another is to > charge 0.1 cent for each posting. I'd actually make a profit out of > this and it'd cost the top poster on the list about a euro/month. > > 2. Find another volunteer with resources to host this. It basically > requires a PC with Internet access and sufficient technical knowledge > to install/maintain a zone and the mailman and apache software. > > 3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is a good > idea. > > Comments, suggestions, ideas are welcome. > > Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) > > _______________________________________________ > 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.willey at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 18:08:29 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 12:08:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> Trying to coordinate hunders of donations of 10 cents each sounds ridiculous. I have a much simplier idea... If Henk decidest that he wants to shift over a commercial provider, I am happy to send him $50 to cover the first couple years worth of fees. I trust that someone else will do the same in two years time. On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > For the past 7 years, the BLML has been hosted on a machine operated by my > employer. This originated in the time that hosting a machine (linux PC, > connected to the Internet) wasn't that easily available for individuals. > This has changed, there are now lots of companies who do this for a small > fee. Therefore, the machine currently running the list will be shut down > as of 31/3/2009. > > This leaves the question what we should do with the list: > > 1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. I currently have > 2 offers, each in the 20 Euro (about 25 US$) per year range. That > leaves the question who is going to pay for this. One option is to > consider opening a paypal account for this. If all 327 subscribers pay > 10 cents, that keeps the list running for 1.5 year. Another is to > charge 0.1 cent for each posting. I'd actually make a profit out of > this and it'd cost the top poster on the list about a euro/month. > > 2. Find another volunteer with resources to host this. It basically > requires a PC with Internet access and sufficient technical knowledge > to install/maintain a zone and the mailman and apache software. > > 3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is a good > idea. > > Comments, suggestions, ideas are welcome. > > Henk > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Ceterum censeo Asplain esse delendam (Cato & Henk) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 18:16:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:16:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4946910A.6020609@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > Trying to coordinate hunders of donations of 10 cents each sounds ridiculous. > I have a much simplier idea... > > If Henk decidest that he wants to shift over a commercial provider, I > am happy to send him $50 to cover the first couple years worth of > fees. > > I trust that someone else will do the same in two years time. > Mark me for 2010. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Dec 15 18:16:58 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:16:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4946910A.6020609@ulb.ac.be> richard willey a ?crit : > Trying to coordinate hunders of donations of 10 cents each sounds ridiculous. > I have a much simplier idea... > > If Henk decidest that he wants to shift over a commercial provider, I > am happy to send him $50 to cover the first couple years worth of > fees. > > I trust that someone else will do the same in two years time. > Mark me for 2010. From richard.willey at gmail.com Mon Dec 15 19:12:01 2008 From: richard.willey at gmail.com (richard willey) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:12:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wilkosz 2D Message-ID: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> Hi All I was hoping that one of our esteemed collegues from Poland might be able to provide me with a bit of raw data. I am involved in a debate regarding system regulation on another bridge forum. I made the (outlandish) claim that players in Poland have switched away from using the Wilkosz 2D opening due to WBF systems regulations. Another member of the forum is disputing this claim. Over the years, I have seen plenty of folks state that Polish pairs are switching away from a Wilkosz 2D towards a multi 2D and 2H = 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in another suit, 2S = 5+ Spades and 5+ cards in a minor. -- 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 nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Dec 15 19:26:07 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:26:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <4946910A.6020609@ulb.ac.be> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <2da24b8e0812150908q206975ecx2d8d81c29af018b4@mail.gmail.com> <4946910A.6020609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4946A13F.7080509@talktalk.net> Google and Yahoo both host groups for free. You can specify access, format, security, mail-delivery and so on. Google may be a better bet than Yahoo because it is less likely to limit future archives; and would probably accept existing archives. From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 15 19:43:34 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:43:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <003d01c95972$9cf649a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001801c95988$01d01c10$05705430$@com> Message-ID: <031338CDB63C4170BDB480DE902E9939@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 10:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [MB] > > So indeed, in such situations you generally have to ask but you can also > count on the common sense of many opponents who knowingly omit the > regulations > and alert untypical doubles. > > [DALB] > > Your hand at IMPs, game all, is: > > KJ93 A9 Q87632 4 > > RHO opens 2C (Polish, 11-15 with clubs and maybe a major), you elect to > pass, LHO bids 2D (relay), partner bids 2H, RHO doubles. > > [1] What call do you make? Pass > [2] What questions do you consider asking before making it? None > [3] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "spades", does > that change your answer to [1] above? No > [4] If in answer to "what is that double?" an opponent says "hearts", does > that change your answer to [1] above? No > [5] How can anyone be expected to play bridge with stupid rules such as > "self-alerting doubles"? ask if you like, put up with the UI, but I have no intention of bidding here. No doubt it's also UI to pard that I don't give a flying f**k. Since pretty well all actions create UI I've just stopped caring. John > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Dec 15 19:49:23 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:49:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <96D235CEE022435BAA60D6A076C6475A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:35 PM Subject: [blml] The Prime Directive [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Law 94 - Cyberspace, the Final Frontier. > A. These are the voyages of the Starship Blml. > B. Its five-year mission: > (a) to explore strange new Lawbooks, > (i) to seek out new Grattanese and new ambiguities, > (ii) to boldly rule where no Director has ruled before. > > Walk-in Butler Pairs (imps scored against a datum) > Dlr: South > Vul: None > > The bidding went: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- --- 1H > Pass 3NT(1) Pass 4H > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Choice of contracts > > T32 > A76 > KQ95 > AT6 > J5 K964 > 9 T532 > JT7642 A8 > Q973 KJ8 > AQ87 > KQJ84 > 3 > 542 > > Opening lead: Jack of diamonds > > This end position was reached after East had just won the > king of spades at trick seven, and was considering her lead > to trick eight. > > --- > --- > Q95 > AT6 > --- 6 > --- T > T76 8 > Q97 KJ8 > 8 > J8 > --- > 542 > > Declarer decided to save time by claiming, noting that he > had side winners in the ace of clubs, the queen of diamonds > (discarding a club) and the eight of spades. East was > uncomfortable with declarer not mentioning the outstanding > trump (Law 70C), so she doubted the claim (Law 68D). Thus > dummy therefore summoned the Director (Law 9B1(b)). > > Since East has to follow suit to each of declarer's side > winners, how would you rule? I'd say to East "Why are you wasting my time?" > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons > or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC > respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The > official departmental 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 jkljkl at gmx.de Mon Dec 15 19:55:59 2008 From: jkljkl at gmx.de (Stefan Filonardi) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:55:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkosz 2D In-Reply-To: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> References: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4946A83F.9060804@gmx.de> Hello Richard, richard willey schrieb: > I was hoping that one of our esteemed collegues from > Poland might be able to provide me with a bit of raw > data. > > I am involved in a debate regarding system regulation on > another bridge forum. I made the (outlandish) claim that > players in Poland have switched away from using the > Wilkosz 2D opening due to WBF systems regulations. > Another member of the forum is disputing this claim. > > Over the years, I have seen plenty of folks state that > Polish pairs are switching away from a Wilkosz 2D towards > a multi 2D and 2H = 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in another > suit, 2S = 5+ Spades and 5+ cards in a minor. I can offer you a quote out of Krzysztof Jassem's book "WJ05 - a modern version of polish club" on page 12 Jassem describes some WJ05 distinctive openings: 2D opening - Multi (weak with H or S) For years, the 2D opening was reserved for the Wilkosz convention. However, Wilkosz is not allowed outside Poland and as a result all Polish pairs playing outside of Poland or on the Internet have retired this convention. ciao stefan From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 15 22:45:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:45:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: Adlai Stevenson (introducing John F. Kennedy in 1960): "Do you remember that in classical time when Cicero had finished speaking, the people said, 'How well he spoke,' but when Demosthenes had finished speaking, they said, 'Let us march.'" Henk Uijterwaal: >>3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is >> a good idea. >> >>Comments, suggestions, ideas are welcome. Richard Hills: Because we have 300+ messages per month, stopping the list might be a good idea. Sturgeon's Law means that only about 30 of those 300+ messages are worth reading. (And this posting is not one of the 30, so read no further.) Eric Landau: >(1) One should get value for one's money, and the value we derive >from BLML comes from reading what other folks have to say -- we >already know what our own opinions are! Richard Hills: At least two blmlers (myself being one of them, and you-know-who being the other) derive our primary blml enjoyment from writing postings, not reading them -- I already know what you-know-who's opinions are! On the other hand, in the course of crafting my blml postings, I occasionally am convinced by myself (not by you-know-who) to change my own opinions. But you-know-who's opinions remain immutable and are repeated ad nauseam, which is another reason to stop the list. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 15 23:03:52 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:03:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001f01c95eb0$c5d38ac0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4946625D.4030302@ulb.ac.be><001301c95ec6$0fae8180$15844c59@chello.pl> <49468608.5090409@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003101c95f01$0475ba00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Bystry a ?crit : > Hi, > > Bystry a ?crit : > >> Take such a hand for example: >> >> S KJT9xx >> H Jx >> D Qxx >> C xx >> >> > AG : partner won't have this hand for two reasons. First, it's too weak > (I assume one would bid 2S). Second, we already own the 109 of spades. > And if you substract them, surely the hand isn't worth 8+. > > MB: Nitpicking. So add J of clubs or change HJ to HQ. Rearrange the > placements of the honors. WTP? > AG : I agree that 4S should not be allowed if 3S is indeed NF (which it probably isn't, or North has made a big error), unless they can prove it shows a good suit. MB: You seem to misunderstand me. In my opinion 4S should be definitely allowed. I would disallow only 3NT (barely). Please, provide me with the examples of the hands which would make it hard for N to decide between NF 3S and 4S. Remember, he may expect even a spade void from S. For me 4S in this auction is one of the two - "partner, I have an invitational hand in spades, and now that you showed maximum I want to play it" or "partner, I have a mild slam try hand, but now that you showed reds I'm content with the game, I would prefer fit or clubs". In both of the cases spades are usually so solid that they can be played opposite a singleton or void. You seem to forget about "demonstrably suggested" and concentrate on LA's. Unnecessary. Pass is 100% a LA. 4S is barely a LA. Remember that you have described your hand very well and despite that partner wants to play only partscore. AG: But changing the HJ into HQ makes 4S playable. In fact, it proves pretty difficult to find a hand facing which 4S wouldn't be at least playable.However, I don't think this makes 4S obvious enough to be allowed (provided, again, that 3S is NF).. MB: "Playable" is not equal with good. And you still don't answer the basic question - why should the hesitation suggest extras, not the difficult choice between strains? Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 15 23:27:24 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:27:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl><4946614B.2050709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <003b01c95f04$4e0db980$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Is pass a LA > opposite a NF 3S bid ? It is (and I'd argue not only a LA but a big > favourite). So 4S shouldnt be allowed. I agree with your opinion about LA's. > Again you can argue responder was thinking about x, y & z ... indeed > I'm postive he was thinking about something ... maybe he was hoping > the competition would speed up because he was hungry ... Who cares. > What is relevant is that his final choice of bids WILL reflect what > it is he was thinking about. If he was worried about some red suit > raise NF or F, pass or 3NT he wont bid any number of spades. Why? Yes, if he was deciding between pass and 3H he wouldn't bid 3S. But if he was deciding between: - 3S and 3NT - 3S and pass - 3S and 3H - 3S and (3D or 3H) then 4S is counter-suggested. [L16B1(a)] "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternatives one that could *demonstrably have been suggested* over another by the extraneous information." [/L] You seem so keen on disallowing them to bid their normal game, that your argumentation starts and ends on the common belief "hesitating always shows extras". 1NT-pass-2NT (hesitation)-pass-3NT do you disalllow 3NT? 1NT (15-17)-pass (hesitation, *)-pass-2S-... (*) The defensive methods are - two suiters and major one-suiters, all may be relatively weak. Do you disallow the balancing bid if it was made on a distributional hand like 6-1-2-4 and 6HCP? 1D-(3S)-5D (hesitation)-pass-6D do you disallow 6D if pass was an LA? 1C-(1H)-1S-(4H)-pass (hesitation)-pass-4S do you disallow 4S if the bidder has relatively weak hand with heart void (but pass is an LA) after realizing (seeing his hand) that opener has actually thought about bidding 4S? > Even with the hand what was the point of 3S? If pd has 0/1/2/3 spades > 3NT will play just as well and maybe better than 4S, while 3S allows > the possibility of a disastrous misunderstanding. The odds of a slam > are poor why look ? Maybe because of: Jx AKxxx KQTxx x or Jxx AKxxx KQTx x ? Regards Maciej From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Dec 16 00:05:42 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:05:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wilkosz 2D In-Reply-To: <4946A83F.9060804@gmx.de> References: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> <4946A83F.9060804@gmx.de> Message-ID: <4946E2C6.8030801@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stefan Filonardi wrote: | Hello Richard, | | richard willey schrieb: | |> I was hoping that one of our esteemed collegues from |> Poland might be able to provide me with a bit of raw |> data. |> |> I am involved in a debate regarding system regulation on |> another bridge forum. I made the (outlandish) claim that |> players in Poland have switched away from using the |> Wilkosz 2D opening due to WBF systems regulations. |> Another member of the forum is disputing this claim. |> |> Over the years, I have seen plenty of folks state that |> Polish pairs are switching away from a Wilkosz 2D towards |> a multi 2D and 2H = 5+ Hearts and 5+ cards in another |> suit, 2S = 5+ Spades and 5+ cards in a minor. | | | I can offer you a quote out of Krzysztof Jassem's book "WJ05 | - a modern version of polish club" on page 12 Jassem | describes some WJ05 distinctive openings: | | | 2D opening - Multi (weak with H or S) | For years, the 2D opening was reserved for the Wilkosz | convention. However, Wilkosz is not allowed outside Poland | and as a result all Polish pairs playing outside of Poland | or on the Internet have retired this convention. | | Given that the rules (AFAIK) on Bridge Base Online, and for OKBridge up to March 2003 (when I left) are/were that all systems are acceptable subject to full disclosure, it is a little difficult to see why playing on the internet should influence Polish pairs into retiring the Wilkosz 2D. There are some tourneys where the host will restrict systems, but that's a personal choice. Brian (whose usual BBO system contains a number of 'brown sticker' openers, and who regularly plays against a pair using a 12+ HCP forcing pass system). -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJRuLGgLujL0lynd0RAs48AJ40NOJu86VKOhnFUeIObxv4iR5s0gCePuoz 67fqCJuorsojLLIgF7waWO0= =8Wbo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 16 00:33:55 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:33:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4946E963.1080707@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > my own opinions. But you-know-who's opinions remain immutable and > are repeated ad nauseam, which is another reason to stop the list. > I know a great many you-know-who's on this list! Herman. From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Dec 16 01:31:00 2008 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:31:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4946E963.1080707@skynet.be> References: <4946E963.1080707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4946F6C4.2050708@t-online.de> Herman De Wael schrieb: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> my own opinions. But you-know-who's opinions remain immutable and >> are repeated ad nauseam, which is another reason to stop the list. >> > > I know a great many you-know-who's on this list! Don't we all? :-) Matthias > > Herman. > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 02:17:54 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:17:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Bidding theory (was Non...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000a01c95ad7$59aba760$0d02f620$@no> Message-ID: 2D multi opening - 2S response Sven Pran asserted: >First of all: 2S is NOT just invitational (against a weak-2 in >hearts), it is AT LEAST invitational. > >According to standard multi South will bid 3 hearts with a "weak" >weak-2 in hearts, pass with a weak-2 in spades and bid 2NT with >the strong 2NT hand. Any other bid will show a "strong" weak-2 in >hearts. Alternative bids for South in the situation above could >be (provided he considers his hand "strong"): 3C - showing a side >suit, 4D - cue bid or 4H for play. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: The methods used by some Norse experts are not necessarily the methods used by some Oz experts. In Canberra expert circles (an oxymoron?) a 2S response to 2D is nowise invitational if pard has a weak two in hearts; it merely promises 3+ hearts and 2- spades. This idea follows the Law of Total Tricks by an advance taking away of the opponents' bidding space, thus making it harder for the opponents to safely balance back into the auction. So when a TD (or AC) determines logical alternatives, the TD must not arbitrarily assume that her methods are the only possible methods; it is the player's belief about the player's methods which is the relevant criterion. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 16 03:36:46 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:36:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wilkosz 2D References: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002a01c95f27$2439c9a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Hi All > > I was hoping that one of our esteemed collegues from Poland might be > able to provide me with a bit of raw data. > > I am involved in a debate regarding system regulation on another > bridge forum. I made the (outlandish) claim that players in Poland > have switched away from using the Wilkosz 2D opening due to WBF > systems regulations. Another member of the forum is disputing this > claim. > > Over the years, I have seen plenty of folks state that Polish pairs > are switching away from a Wilkosz 2D towards a multi 2D and 2H = 5+ > Hearts and 5+ cards in another suit, 2S = 5+ Spades and 5+ cards in a > minor. Let's separate the players to those who: a) play in the open events at the national level b) play primarily in local tournaments and lower leagues and I'll add c) play only online In the category a) (much less numerous) Multi is much more popular. In the category b) Wilkosz is still used by much more players. In the category c) it depends on the type of the online entertainment, some players partcipate only in Polish tournaments and some in the open too. But generally Wilkosz is not forbidden and it's hard for me to estimate how numerous is each option. And yes, the change from Wilkosz was certainly partially caused by the classification of this method as BSC (not only in WBF, also in most of the NBO's). Changing the system for different events is arduous and error-prone. But there is another reason for the change: Fashion and tradition - Wilkosz is our, Polish invention and was long ago incorporated in the standard bidding methods. With the ramifications of the "iron curtain" Polish players were not particurarly aware (with the exclusion of a small group of internationals) of many bidding curiosities from abroad. Instead we had our own inventors like Lukasz Slawinski, our own invented systems - Strong Pass, relay systems, Natural bidding theory etc. Nowadays we are open for the world and it is reflected in an import of many previously uncommon conventions like Multi, bad/good NT, two-way doubles, RKCB (sic) etc. Therefore, because Wilkosz is often criticised for technical reasons, Multi is slowly superseding it. Simply a new trend. If you wish so I may try to collect some more views on this subject. I'll give you some examples of the opinions: - my friend, good player but playing rarely, continues to apply Wilkosz because he is used to it and sees no big technical difference between Wilkosz and Multi - member of our national senior team explained that they changed to Multi because they play a fair portion of bridge abroad and they do want to have a steady system. He considers Multi (small disclaimer - comparing the methods I'm actually writing about whole structure, with accompanying bids 2H, 2S) technically better and better suited for him - one of our top regional players said he actually has no special reason for the change, he simply saw that many top players switched to Multi, so he followed them - another one based his change on technicalities - another one likes to play 2C as preemptive with both majors and Multi structure is for him better suited to this - I'm of the similar opinion as the last one (2C is also in my arsenal) plus I like in Multi the specific balance between destruction and construction. It it worse as purely preemptive than weak twos (2S preempts hearts much better and auctions like 2H-4H and 2S-4S are better than in Multi when responder has only one fit) but has a distinctive advantage in invitational and slam-try sequences, some fine options like 2D-2H-3H, 2D-2S-3S are added, and it has a strange effect of creating confusion among the opponents. What's more, all the accompanying two-suiters have much better preemptive effect than Wilkosz, construction is easier, and Wilkosz has no similar confusing effect as Multi because most players are more or less prepared to cope with it thanks to the experience. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 03:43:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 13:43:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01c95b18$e7b03f80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: "The new Prime Minister of Thailand, Abhisit Vejjajiva, studied at Eton and Oxford, hence is an old school Thai." Maciej Bystry: [big snip] >Tim rightly pointed out that thinking at the table what >will be a TD's decision isn't playing bridge. Richard Hills: Some years ago an ACBL Appeals Committee unrightly gave gratuitous advice to a player. The player had misbid, then had correctly followed the advice of the final sentence of what is now Law 75C: "South must not correct North's explanation (or notify the Director) immediately, and he has no responsibility to do so subsequently." Unfortunately the player was not carrying his system notes with him at the time, so the AC not only draconianly interpreted "evidence" as meaning only "written evidence" in what is now Law 21B1(b): "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary." but the ACBL AC also told the player that he should have intentionally lied about his pre-existing mutual explicit and implicit partnership understandings, since that lie was what the ACBL AC was going to determine as fact anyway, thereby lying would have saved time. :-( Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Dec 16 04:48:29 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:48:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: <000701c95d97$d04075a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4946614B.2050709@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4947250D.5020903@verizon.net> Karel wrote: >> Second question : assume 3S is NF (and that's surely not obvious, if you >> see North's hand). Is 4S "automatical enough" ? >> Trying to construct hands for North (8+ HCP, remember, and most probably >> 6 cards if passable), do nearly all of them provide a good 4S contract ? >> The worst I can imagine is something like Kxxxxx - x - Jx - KJxx. >> Since this makes game poor, I'd be tempted to say that 4S isn't the only >> LA. >> The fact that I would surely bid 4S, and several of us too, because I >> have so many high tricks and something in spades, is irrelevent, as I >> considered passing, and see definition of LA. >> >> > +++ This is exactly what it boils down to. It is pointless looking > at the actual hand with an opening bid, when it is clear that the 3S > bidder obviously thought 3S was forcing. Totally irrelevant. Equally > constructing lots of hands where 4S makes is irrelevant. Is pass a LA > opposite a NF 3S bid ? It is (and I'd argue not only a LA but a big > favourite). So 4S shouldnt be allowed. > > Again you can argue responder was thinking about x, y & z ... indeed > I'm postive he was thinking about something ... maybe he was hoping > the competition would speed up because he was hungry ... Who cares. > What is relevant is that his final choice of bids WILL reflect what > it is he was thinking about. If he was worried about some red suit > raise NF or F, pass or 3NT he wont bid any number of spades. > Certainly if he has any game ambitions or invite he should realise > that any NON game bid at this stage (after a clear BIT) will seriously > compromise his already narrowly defined pd. > > Even with the hand what was the point of 3S? If pd has 0/1/2/3 spades > 3NT will play just as well and maybe better than 4S, while 3S allows > the possibility of a disastrous misunderstanding. The odds of a slam > are poor why look ? > > K. > > No. You got off to a good start by pointing out that what N thought doesn't matter. It's a bit insane for N to make a non-forcing call, but he did. You also pointed out that pass is a LA, also correct. You then lost the thread by saying that pass is a big favorite, therefore it should not be allowed. Wrong. The entire question has to be what is suggested by the UI. Even if a bid is a big favorite, if the UI suggests it, it is not allowable. So, based on the knowledge of the system that 3S is non-forcing, we have to look at the S hand and see if S can determine what the BIT actually suggests. If no LA is demonstrably suggested over another, there can be no score adjustment. So, what does the BIT mean to S? 1) N may be minimum with diamond tolerance, but extra spade length and had a tough time deciding whether to pass 3D or fight it out in spades. Suggested action: Pass. 2) N could be angling for a NT game if S has a club stop, having forgotten that 3S is non-forcing. Suggested action could be pass or 4S. 3) N could have been considering showing a heart tolerance instead of rebidding minimal spades. Suggested action: Pass. 4) N could have been considering showing a heart tolerance instead of rebidding maximal spades. Suggested action: 4S 5) N could have extra values, and be worried that 3S is an underbid (the actual hand, but it doesn't matter). Suggested action: 4S There is some overlap between these alternatives, but I don't see a clear suggestion one way or another. The AC got it right, although they may not have expressed it well, as described by the OP. The BIT could suggest either a pass or and advance, and S has no way to determine which. If no action is demonstrably suggested, all actions are legal. Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 05:09:27 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:09:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] AC in Amsterdam [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20081211092917.234521135F87@mailgw1.sgs.immi.gov.au> Message-ID: Isaac Asimov, "Not Final", final line: "I imagine they'll be rather pleased." Ton Kooijman asserted: [snip] >I tried to convince the team that the appeal procedure was over >and the final decision taken. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: It seems to me that "over" and "final" are inconsistent with Law 93C and also inconsistent with the WBF Code of Practice, page 5: "At international level the WBF urges that arrangements be instituted for an appeal to be considered against the decision of an appeal committee. However, the nature of international tournaments is such that appeals of this category should be restricted; it is suggested that to be heard such an appeal should be certified by one of a small number of nominated senior and expert individuals to be worthy of consideration. If this certificate is obtained it is recommended that the appeal be heard by a joint meeting of, say, the Rules and Regulations Committee with the Laws Committee under the chairmanship of the President or of his nominee for the purpose. Where this procedure applies, as for its own tournaments is henceforward the case with the WBF, the certifying individual is empowered to dismiss the appeal if he/she does not find its content appropriate for the attention of the joint committees." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 16 05:35:24 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:35:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input In-Reply-To: <002a01c95f27$2439c9a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> <002a01c95f27$2439c9a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: I am thinking that the process of making and changing laws could be improved if the public had access to basically the whole process. Except the final vote is still WBFLC. I don't know very much about the process or what has been tried. But the basic argument is simple. If there are n people constructing laws (1? 4?) and then you make things public and m people are helping (20? 50?), then you have more people (21-54) finding potential problems. Debate can find better solutions. There is a second point, smaller but possibly relevant. Again, without really knowing what happens, I worry that the members of the WBFLC do not receive a lot of input about the pros and cons of the laws they are approving. If there was public criticism and debate, it seems that would help those members to be aware of the issues and cast a more intelligent vote. An even smaller point is that this might help the WBFLC better gage public opinion and common practice. It also (very small point) might help the WBFLC seem more responsive to the needs of players. I imagine something like a message board/forum, perhaps adapted to the purpose. The worst that could happen is that it isn't useful and so you don't use it again. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 05:51:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:51:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001801c95c60$aef6de80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: >>The concept of self-Alerting calls is in my opinion a bit shaky. Take a >>usual auction: >> >>1D-1S-3S-4C-(?) >> >>In my system double of the call showing shortness suggests values in >>higher of the remaining suits (in this case double would entice heart >>lead, pass would warn against that). But double of the call showing >>values or undefined (e.g. simple cuebids) suggests lead in the suit >>shown by the doubled call. >> >>So to make any decision I have to ask for the meaning of 4C. >The problem is that you dodged my question. > >I'll ask in this form - player X questioned 4C, the response was >"cuebid", he passed (double would suggest club lead), later his partner >lead a heart, although a club lead was certainly an LA. The opponents >call you (you're a TD) and ask for the ruling. After the inquiry you get >to know that double of 4C showing shortness would suggest heart lead. >What is your decision (heart lead defeated 6S, club lead would let it >through)? Ann Richards (1933-2006), Democrat Texas Governor, of George H.W. Bush: "Poor George, he can't help it -- he was born with a silver foot in his mouth." Richard Hills: As TD I would rule that Maciej and partner have shot themselves in the foot, and adjust the score to 6S making. Three ways for Maciej's foot-shooting to be avoided: 1) Play a less effective method (as I do) in which a double always asks for a club lead, or 2) If Maciej insists on using different doubles against splinters, then Maciej could ask before the auction period commences, "In what circumstances, if any, do you use splinters?", or 3) If Maciej insists on flying blind before the auction period, then Maciej could punt a blind Double during the auction period without asking a question, since a 50% chance of Maciej's partner guessing right is better than a 100% chance of Maciej's partner being forced to choose the wrong lead after UI from a Maciej question. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 16 06:08:12 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:08:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 23:05:05 -0500, wrote: > > Law 16B1(b): > > "A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players > in question and **using the methods of the partnership**, would be given > serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of > whom > it is judged some might select it." > > Richard Hills: > > I suggest that in order for Law 16B1(b) to be consistent with Law 75A, > the > phrase "using the methods of the partnership" necessarily needs to be > interpreted as "using what the player Lawfully believes are the methods > of > the partnership". I disagree with Nigel; I think this is an excellent contribution. Richard's interpretation makes exceeding common sense. Well, to me. Let me give an example. RHO bids 3S. You ask and LHO describes that as nonforcing. You pass and LHO is now deciding what to do. RHO now says "it's imps" (or "last hand" or something to encourage partner not to pass) and LHO bids 4S. Your opps may be ignorant beginners or may deserve a servere procedural penalty. But what about redress to you and your partner? It looks obvious until the director determines that 3S is forcing. It's on the convention card. Does the director determine whether pass is an LA over a forcing 3S? That would be silly. That procedure doesn't even start to determine if LHO used the UI. To determine if LHO used the UI, you have to consider the auction as LHO understood it. Richard's addition of lawfully is also nice. Otherwise, there is an ambiguity in how to determine the LAs. (Imagine the above example with RHO shaking his head when LHO explains 3S as nonforcing.) Richard's method of resolving the ambiguity about "lawfully" was by achieving consistency with other laws. This is well-accepted. It seems to me that the laws were reasonably written with the thought in mind that the players had understood each other's bid and conformed to their partnership agreements. So this phrase ("using the methods of the partnership") becomes potentially ambiguous in an auction with a misunderstanding. Bob From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 16 06:59:10 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:59:10 -0800 Subject: [blml] Public input References: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com><002a01c95f27$2439c9a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <0F8C8D96ACAD4B2381B6BA16EF42DCB8@MARVLAPTOP> Robert Frick wrote: (snip) > I worry that the members of the WBFLC do not > receive a lot of input about the pros and cons of the laws they > are > approving. If there was public criticism and debate, it seems that > would > help those members to be aware of the issues and cast a more > intelligent > vote. > > An even smaller point is that this might help the WBFLC better > gage public > opinion and common practice. It also (very small point) might help > the > WBFLC seem more responsive to the needs of players. > Having attended many ACBLLC meetings, I formed the impression that the members felt no need for outside assistance. I submitted several suggestions over the years, but did not get the courtesy of a reply. I once suggested to the late Ralph Cohen, then co-chair of the LC, that he might benefit from lurking on BLML. He said he didn't want to clutter up his in-box. Adam Wildawsky, vice chairman, is a subscriber, lurking now I guess, but Adam is always right so he needs no assistance. Some of the WBFLC are also subscribers, to their credit. At the WBFLC meeting in Lille, France, it was apparent from the minutes that BLML discussions had prompted some of the interpretations, probably thanks to Grattan. Unfortunately a few of the best have been abandoned for no good reason. For instance, they declared the "pro question" to be illegal, but the 2007 Laws say it is merely "improper." I believe that one of the requirements for being an LC member should be a subscription to BLML, with participation at least occasionally. I guess that makes me a dreamer, like Robert. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 07:03:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:03:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49421EF5.4040006@skynet.be> Message-ID: Harold Wilson, British Prime Minister 1964-1970 and 1974-1976, describing his 1974 Cabinet: "I've buried all the hatchets. But I know where I've buried them and I can dig them up if necessary." >Richard always seems to use logic, but his logic is totally wrong: Richard Hills (prior posting): >>Perhaps not, since I suggest that in 2018 Law 1 is revised to: >> >>"Duplicate Bridge is played between two opponents who move >>their pieces alternately on a square board composed of an 8x8 >>grid of 64 squares alternately light (the "white" squares) and >>dark (the "black" squares)." >> >>A question which springs to mind is whether the WBF Executive >>has the power to promulgate such a 2018 Law 1. >Of course it has. WBF Constitution, Article 2: "The purpose of the organization shall be to promote, foster, promulgate and develop the sport of Contract Bridge throughout the world....." Richard Hills (current posting): Changing the Laws so that the sport of Duplicate Bridge became the different sport of Chess would be unconstitutional, hence it would be beyond the power of the WBF Executive to promulgate such a 2018 Law 1. >So if the WBF decide to write the dws principles in the laws, then >these become bridge. WBF Constitution, Article 2: ".....to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that in bridge contests the spirit of fair play prevails....." Richard Hills (current posting): A hypothetical Law change requiring players to intentionally lie to their opponents would be contrary to the spirit of fair play, hence unconstitutional. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "play fair, v. & n. act honourably" "spirit, n. the principle or meaning or purpose underlying the form of a law etc." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 16 07:16:01 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:16:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000b01c95f45$c5346fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, thanks for the answer. > Richard Hills: > > As TD I would rule that Maciej and partner have shot themselves in the > foot, and adjust the score to 6S making. So despite the fact that the calls above 3NT are deemed self-alertable you would rule that asking about such calls is equal to asking about non-alerted calls, not equal to asking about alerted ones? Then the whole concept of "self-alertability" is absurd and redundant. > Three ways for Maciej's foot-shooting to be avoided: > > 1) Play a less effective method (as I do) in which a double always asks > for a club lead, or I know that you intented that as a joke, but in fact that is not funny at all. Issuing such Alert regulations, that the completely legal and meritorious method becomes de facto unplayable, is for me a clear proof that the authorities do not understand the purpose of Alert system. I prefer the opponents to be able to use that small portion of UI (that they are on the right track) to avoid being pushed into big UI troubles myself. > 2) If Maciej insists on using different doubles against splinters, then > Maciej could ask before the auction period commences, "In what > circumstances, if any, do you use splinters?", or "All right, here you go - in many sequences we play cuebids as simply showing a control, in many other as showing specifically shortness. Should we elaborate?" "Of course." "So, in this sequence it is..., in this..." ... TD "Change please" "What???? But we didn't manage to start the first board." TD "Who cares? A-, A- to both sides, change for the next round" Again, it may look like a joke, but it isn't. My partnership uses many competitive 2NT bids as Lebensohl-like. Ostensibly fantasy situation - the RA issues a ban of alerting the 2NT bids. Now to protect themselves from the UI the opponents would have to ask before the commencing of the play about our 2NT methods. I would answer "In many auctions Lebensohl-like, in less (but still many enough) natural, sometimes showing side 4-card suit.". "That doesn't help us, how could we know during the auction which is which?". "You cannot. I may describe all the sequences if you wish.". "Yeah, sure. Let's just play bridge, alert the artificial 2NT and damn the f***** RA". "Right, who cares what those deadheads stated?". And that is, dear Richard, what would have happened. Looks familiar? Hell, yes. That is exactly what our players usually do, contrary to the foolish regulations. I'm very curious if the Australian players do the same. If not, then may I congratulate them for the enormous level of discipline and the devotion to the infinite wisdom of their regulators? > 3) If Maciej insists on flying blind before the auction period, then > Maciej could punt a blind Double during the auction period without > asking a question, since a 50% chance of Maciej's partner guessing > right is better than a 100% chance of Maciej's partner being forced to > choose the wrong lead after UI from a Maciej question. Ah, yes. Random bridge is what I strongly adore. Who cares what does 4C mean, who cares what does my double mean. The most important thing is that the opponents may not alert 4C because (oh, terror) Alerts transmit UI and maybe they are just in the middle of the mixup and after the Alert they'll use the UI to straight the auction and the other side won't realize this and, even if they do, the TD is clueless and the TD could be Herman De Wael who admittedly won't allow for the use of UI, but he will decide that the bidders were grossly harmed by my unfounded, malicious will to know the meaning of their call which forced them to burden themselves with the UI and ... Richard, it is a high time for you to change the colours and join the dWS camp. "UI is the greatest evil, because the greatest evil is UI, and it is really UI, which the greatest of evils is". Regards Maciej PS: If my sick humour offends anyone, I apologize in advance. Sitting the whole night coding, close to insanity. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 07:29:41 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:29:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 40 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <031338CDB63C4170BDB480DE902E9939@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: [snip] >ask if you like, put up with the UI, but I have no intention of >bidding here. >No doubt it's also UI to pard that I don't give a flying filk. > >Since pretty well all actions create UI I've just stopped caring. Richard Hills: While questions not asked may give UI to partner (Law 73B1), in the case of MadDog and myself I suspect that most of our unasked questions do _not_ create UI, since those unasked questions are due to us abiding by Law 20G1: "It is improper to ask a question solely for partner's benefit." because of our trivial pursuit in memorising esoteric bidding methods. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 16 09:17:56 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:17:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 Message-ID: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi all. Although I have a full respect for all the laws and obey them, still some of them I regard as absurd, unclear, causing more troubles than they cure. I don't have a particuclar hierarchy, but L27 would certainly be a favourite for the first place after the 2007 change. Earlier the situation was clear - you could correct the insufficient bid with the correct one in the same denomination if both were not artificial. Otherwise you had to guess the final contract. Fine. Leaving aside the issue whether that was fair or not, it was certainly clear, easy to understand and apply. UI problems were marginal. What do we have now? First point: [L27B1] (a) if the insufficient bid is corrected by the lowest bid in the same denomination and in the Director's opinion both the insufficient bid and the substituted bid are incontrovertibly not artificial the auction proceeds without further rectification. *Law 16D does not apply but see D following.* [/L] Usually the substituted call would bear more information than the insufficient one. But what if the situation is different? 1C-(2S)-2H The player didn't see 2S and thought he is showing strong, slam invitational hand with 6 (rarely 5) very good hearts. Now he corrects 2H to 3H, which is forcing, but shows only 5+ hearts, not necessarily strong and the overall strength may be only sufficient for game. "Law 16D does not apply" so the knowledge that the infractor has actually a strong hand with a very good suit seems to be AI for his partner. Now he may cuebid safely with Jx in hearts, whereas normally he would bid 3NT. Right, we have "but see D following". So the TD may change the slam achieved by the offenders to the game afterwards. But firstly we tell the OS "there is no further rectification" and "insufficient bid is AI for you" and later we take away their good score saying in effect "sure, it was AI, but we will now rule as if it was UI". What is a reason for such maneuvering? Wouldn't it be clear and easier to understand for the players to simply apply L16D? Wouldn't it be more just to allow them to reach the appropriate contract at their own, not by the TD whimsy at the end of the board? Second point, the infamous L27B1(b): [L27B1] (b) if, except as in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected with a legal call that in the Director's opinion has the same meaning* as, or a more precise meaning* than, the insufficient bid (such meaning being fully contained within the possible meanings of the insufficient bid) the auction proceeds without further rectification, but see D following. [/L] The wording is clear, the application may seem clear too. But in fact it is a great hole for abuse, confusion, different rulings in the similar cases and encourages cheating. Let's begin with the application at the table. The round has a limited duration. Now the case appears, the TD is called and starts to establish the facts. He may inspect the CC, but not in every country they are mandatory, sometimes only MiniCCs are obligatory, sometimes the given sequence won't be at the full CC. Besides, it would be very hard for the TD (who is very often not a top player) to grasp all the systemic implications in the reasonable time. So in many cases all that is left is to ask the players. And they may answer truthfully or they may hide something. Even if they answer truthfully they may overlook something, remember that they are in the middle of the play. Worse, if they decide to hide something, the TD has no real chance to discover that. So after all this efforts he would often have to give a ruling which he himself wouldn't be sure about. And now tell me how much time will this procedure take? What will be the atmosphere at the table? Will it be easy for the players to regain concetration? Compare that to the simple ruling - artificial - guess the contract, partner is barred. Next one - I thought it would be reasonable to state "with a legal call that according to the partnership methods has the same meaning". Instead we have "in the Director's opinion". The Director may be a poor player, may have no idea about the players' system, but it is his opinion which counts, not their agreements. So formally the TD could allow for the correction 1C-(1S)-1H to double because in his opinion double shows 4 hearts, notwithstanding that in the partnership methods double means transfer to NT. Yes, I know, no sane TDs will do something similar, but nevertheless such phrasing is nonsense. I may only suppose why it is like that. To protect the TD from his errors. The lawmakers were sure that in many cases the TD won't be able to make the correct decision at the table, so they wanted to avoid the need of the ruling of the TD's error. It may be acceptable but confirms explicitly that this law is very hard to apply. Now the practice, actual deal from yesterday, I was kibitzing after ending my own boards. The auction goes: pass-pass-1S-(2D)-2C (meant as Drury) In the reality the opponents condoned the insufficient bid by 2D. But let's assume that is not the case. Now the infractor offers to correct Drury to 3D, which meaning is invitational with spade support. Looks the same, isn't it? Yes, one may quarrel that it forces the partnership to play at the 3 level but in practice it is really equal to Drury. But I know this partnership's methods and I know that they have an agreement that 2NT instead of Drury shows invitational hand with more distribution and less HCP, promising 4 trumps and a singleton (I know some pairs who play this similarly but without the necessesity of the shortness). That makes 3D different than Drury, because it includes meaning of 2NT. And I can assure you that neither the actual opponents nor the actual TD would have any inkling about that. Similar situation is surely common in low-level bridge all around the world. At the top level the opponents have a fair amount of knowledge about different systems and agreements, the TDs are highly qualified and the chance of getting away with hiding something is remote. How does it work in the local environment I don't have to say. Approaching the end - new L27 is a potential Pandora's Box. Why was it introduced? I'm able to see some reasons: - to allow more auctions to continue more or less normally (commendable) - to enable the TDs another chance of applying their subjective judgment ("in Director's opinion", L27D) instead of the simple, clear and objective mechanical application (saddening) - as a continuation of the modern trend to allow the infractors to escape the consequences of their mistakes (tragic) Sorry for my whinging, it is simply hard for me to understand why the lawmakers thought that helping the careless players who don't want to trouble themselves with paying sufficient attention to the game is so important that the price of chaos is judged to be adequate. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 16 09:38:34 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:38:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4947690A.8080309@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > WBF Constitution, Article 2: > > ".....to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that in bridge contests > the spirit of fair play prevails....." > > Richard Hills (current posting): > > A hypothetical Law change requiring players to intentionally lie to > their opponents would be contrary to the spirit of fair play, hence > unconstitutional. > But a law making it not only acceptable but even mandatory to lie by omission (by not revealing that partner has given a mistaken explanation) is within the "spirit"? Sorry Richard, but it is the WBF who define what the spirit of bridge is, not the Australian Immigration Service. Herman. Independent Insurance Broker, if you want to know which profession to retaliate against. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 16 09:41:05 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:41:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494769A1.5040704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Richard Hills: > > Because we have 300+ messages per month, stopping the list might be > a good idea. Sturgeon's Law means that only about 30 of those 300+ > messages are worth reading. (And this posting is not one of the 30, > so read no further.) > AG : there are indded too much messages trying to repeat previously stated opinions (and I plead guilty). What there should be more is discussion of actual and interesting cases. I was a bit surprised to see that my last two questions attracted only one answer apiece. And I'm in favor of totally disallowing messages that include rude words. Don't tell me that what one takes as rude isn't rude for the other ; we all know perfectly well that some contents should never have been posted. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 16 09:46:28 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:46:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 In-Reply-To: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49476AE4.3040100@skynet.be> I have no comments on anythig Maciej writes here. Completely correct, Maciej. I just thought it should be said. Bystry wrote: [read it again, if you please] From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 16 09:46:41 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:46:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49476AF1.5010202@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > A hypothetical Law change requiring players to intentionally lie to > their opponents would be contrary to the spirit of fair play, hence > unconstitutional. > AG : do we speak of the same change ? Then who mentioned "requiring" ? Wans't the word "allowing" ? Not that unbalancing the deal due to heavy UI creation (and an extraterrestrial score due either to strongly bending backwards or a severe score adjustment) would be more 'fair play' to otehr competitors, you know. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Dec 16 09:56:01 2008 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 09:56:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14/12/2008, Karel wrote: > Teams deal S > North > S AKQxx > H Tx > D Axx > C Qxx > > South > S T9 > H AKJ8x > D Kxxx > C Ax > > They precision and the bididng went as follows > S N > 1H 1S > 3D 3S** > 4S > > 1H 5+ hearts 11-15 > 1S 4+ spades 8+ points > 3D NF maximum natural > 3S** Agreed break in tempo. > > During the play the opps enquired if 3S was NF and was told by South > that it was. Result 4S +2. The opps cal the td > establish the BIT and say S cant bid 4S over a NF 3S bid having > already bid his hand. N may have a 6 card suit and 8 > points. The pause clearly demonstrated extras and allowed South > another bid having already descibed his hand in a very > narrow range. > > The Td ruled 3S+3 > > The Ac reverted the score back saying S is entitled to bid over 3S > even NF if he wishes. For me personally, pass can't be an alternative with this hand. I've got an absolute maximum, lots of controls, a doubleton and T9 in trumps where I could be void. So I consider a raise more or less automatic. That doesn't rule out 3S as a LA, though. It most probably is, but you'd have to be one of norths peers to know. > > Soooo > > > Karel > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Dec 16 10:40:15 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:40:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Something NOT about cheating [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4947777F.2020900@skynet.be> Another reaction to this post of Richard's: richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > A hypothetical Law change requiring players to intentionally lie to > their opponents would be contrary to the spirit of fair play, hence > unconstitutional. > On one day Richard writes two posts. In one he accuses me (or rather you-know-who, but I think I know who) of continuously repeating the same argument. In the other he repeats yet again an argument he has used 27 times before. 27 times I have countered this argument. Now who is the repeater? The person who repeats an argument, or the one who repeats the counter-argument? Let me try for the 28th time: Using the analogy with "lying to the opponents" is not fair. It is bringing outside crimes within the game of bridge, which defines its own crimes. If Richard were to write his sentence with "intentionally giving MI to the opponents" (*) in stead of "lying to the opponents", he would achieve two things: - no priest would understand what the criminal were confessing to; - at least I'd have the fair counterexample that Richard is guilty of "intentionally giving UI to partner". (*) and I do admit that I'm guilty of the crime of "intentionally giving MI to opponents". Richard is so set in his beliefs that not only he sees them for what they are: beliefs, not dogma; but also he does not realise that his rantings are "repeats", not "answers to repeats". You-know-who. From karel at esatclear.ie Tue Dec 16 12:32:00 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 11:32:00 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Again to suggest N/S were playing 3S as forcing is redundant to the issue. North clearly thought 3S was forcing and as such could bid it with almost any hand. As 3S is forcing he can take as much time as he wants, as he is going to get another go to bid again and clarify. South on the other hand thought it was NF. Again the merits of this are irrelevant that is what he thought. So the question is - is his already narrowly defined hand worth another move ? (a) N/S claim that the 1S shows 8+ points. I think we can all assume that what they really mean is that a 1 level response indicates a hand that is worth a bid in responders mind. It is ludicrous to suggest they pass with a 7 or even 6 count, heart void and 6+ spades for example or 5044 where a secondary fit even 4/3 will play alot better. (b) 3S as NF means that responder has 6 - 10 (probably 9 max) points. With 11 or even a good 10 opposite a known 14/15, a NF 3S bid would be a huge risk. (c) 3S shows a 5th spade it does not promise 6. So we are willing to play at the 4 level in a 5/2 fit plus no secondary fit (if we had an 8 card fit we'd play there). (d) Again unconfirmed, but there is a big big inference that opener does not have 3 spades. With a 3541 max shape surely they would raise spades and not bid a NF 3D bid denying support for partners suit ? 1) N may be minimum with diamond tolerance, but extra spade length and had a tough time deciding whether to pass 3D or fight it out in spades. Suggested action: Pass. +++ Well with a hand which doesnt have enough to go to game deciding to play in a 6 at best 2 spade fit and probably worse versus a known 4+/3 diamond fit, imo isnt a difficult decision, certainly not in teams (pairs be harder) .. quick pass. The gain versus going minus in a spade misfit is not warranted imo. So a slow 3S bid is far more likely to indicate a 3.5S bid. 2) N could be angling for a NT game if S has a club stop, having forgotten that 3S is non-forcing. Suggested action could be pass or 4S. +++ you cant act on this. You cant due to the pause take inference that pd may have forgotten the system and bid accordingly. Thats the same as saying the pause woke opener up to the fact that 3S may infact be forcing!! And even if you could the fact N is angling for anything must show a better than min hand, again an inference you arent entitled to. 3) N could have been considering showing a heart tolerance instead of rebidding minimal spades. Suggested action: Pass. +++ same as (1) and again would .. should bid 3H. Infact with 5 or 6 poor spades and a doubleton heart the case is much stronger to give preference as opener could be 6/4 or 6/5 in the reds. 4) N could have been considering showing a heart tolerance instead of rebidding maximal spades. Suggested action: 4S +++ So the next time this sequence comes up they solve this problem by pausing again ? The core problem here is that N/S are playing a silly sequence. 3D as 4 card NF on a hand known to contain a max of 15 points opposite a possible 6/7 count misfit is daft. BUT thats the way they play it. All the hands in this thread and numerous others are going to cause responder untold grief. To solve their problem they tank and then bid a NF 3S ... "Got a problem here pd .. got a few extras but cant show it using this wonderful system" 5) N could have extra values, and be worried that 3S is an underbid (the actual hand, but it doesn't matter). Suggested action: 4S +++ AGREE. Of course he has extras and of course they are spade oriented. The only real difficulty is a 3.5 Spade bid. Any red suit decision or 3NT decision is not hard. Bottom line the 3S shows more than min, probably a 3.5 spade hand. It isnt trying to decide whether to pass, support heart or bid 3NT ... these are easy decisions. A smooth 3S NF bid ... WILL ... have a sufficient amount of peer passers to make pass a LA, this is unarguable. So 4S or any bid with this hand cant be allowed. Why I started the thread though is more the "lawyer" versus "punter" angle. I would predict that maybe 8 or 9 out of 10 E/W would (a) not notice the problem on this sequence (b) even if they did wouldnt have the bridge laws knowledge to call the td and state their case So to me it looks like those with knowledge of the laws are in a position to gain over the "punter" .... a tad unfair ? Karel From brian at meadows.pair.com Tue Dec 16 14:43:30 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:43:30 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input In-Reply-To: References: <2da24b8e0812151012h32173bb1k1d1c5f7bf452dc19@mail.gmail.com> <002a01c95f27$2439c9a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4947B082.5040204@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert Frick wrote: | I am thinking that the process of making and changing laws could be | improved if the public had access to basically the whole process. Except | the final vote is still WBFLC. | | I don't know very much about the process or what has been tried. | | But the basic argument is simple. If there are n people constructing laws | (1? 4?) and then you make things public and m people are helping (20? | 50?), then you have more people (21-54) finding potential problems. Debate | can find better solutions. | | There is a second point, smaller but possibly relevant. Again, without | really knowing what happens, I worry that the members of the WBFLC do not | receive a lot of input about the pros and cons of the laws they are | approving. If there was public criticism and debate, it seems that would | help those members to be aware of the issues and cast a more intelligent | vote. | | An even smaller point is that this might help the WBFLC better gage public | opinion and common practice. It also (very small point) might help the | WBFLC seem more responsive to the needs of players. | | I imagine something like a message board/forum, perhaps adapted to the | purpose. The worst that could happen is that it isn't useful and so you | don't use it again. | Bob, The problem with a single message board/forum is that the occasional useful posting is likely to get overwhelmed among the amount of non-useful stuff. If the WBFLC *really* wanted to get input from the bridge world at large, the way to do it would be to ask for some volunteers, and set up a couple of cascaded mailing lists. On the lowest level and public list, have a few volunteers such as yours truly, who really don't have the expertise to do much more than weed out duplicate postings plus the obvious wackoes. Anything which looks sensible, said volunteers post to a second, and private, mailing list, where at least a couple of our expert TDs are subscribed. It's up to them to move anything which merits serious consideration onto another private mailing list, to which the WBFLC members are subscribed. Add more levels if desired, but I'm sure the principle is clear. I've used a model like this before, albeit not in a bridge environment, and it seemed to work well. Very few messages made it through to those of us who actually wrote the software, but the ones that did mostly merited some serious discussion. Brian. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJR7CCgLujL0lynd0RAkCzAKCTgs5xIKlW7AwMkHcz6IoRRAdXnQCfajLC pMjAWFNMueCCx6rM2jhB53I= =1rdk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Tue Dec 16 14:58:33 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:58:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4947B409.9000009@verizon.net> Karel wrote: > Again to suggest N/S were playing 3S as forcing is redundant to the > issue. North clearly thought 3S was forcing and as such could bid it > with almost any hand. As 3S is forcing he can take as much time as he > wants, as he is going to get another go to bid again and clarify. > > South on the other hand thought it was NF. Again the merits of this > are irrelevant that is what he thought. So the question is - is his > already narrowly defined hand worth another move ? > > (a) N/S claim that the 1S shows 8+ points. I think we can all assume > that what they really mean is that a 1 level response indicates a hand > that is worth a bid in responders mind. It is ludicrous to suggest > they pass with a 7 or even 6 count, heart void and 6+ spades for > example or 5044 where a secondary fit even 4/3 will play alot better. > > (b) 3S as NF means that responder has 6 - 10 (probably 9 max) points. > With 11 or even a good 10 opposite a known 14/15, a NF 3S bid would be > a huge risk. > > (c) 3S shows a 5th spade it does not promise 6. So we are willing to > play at the 4 level in a 5/2 fit plus no secondary fit (if we had an 8 > card fit we'd play there). > > (d) Again unconfirmed, but there is a big big inference that opener > does not have 3 spades. With a 3541 max shape surely they would raise > spades and not bid a NF 3D bid denying support for partners suit ? > > 1) N may be minimum with diamond tolerance, but extra spade length and > had a tough time deciding whether to pass 3D or fight it out in spades. > Suggested action: Pass. > > +++ Well with a hand which doesnt have enough to go to game deciding > to play in a 6 at best 2 spade fit and probably worse versus a known > 4+/3 diamond fit, imo isnt a difficult decision, certainly not in > teams (pairs be harder) .. quick pass. The gain versus going minus in > a spade misfit is not warranted imo. So a slow 3S bid is far more > likely to indicate a 3.5S bid. > > 2) N could be angling for a NT game if S has a club stop, having > forgotten that 3S is non-forcing. Suggested action could be pass or 4S. > > +++ you cant act on this. You cant due to the pause take inference > that pd may have forgotten the system and bid accordingly. Thats the > same as saying the pause woke opener up to the fact that 3S may infact > be forcing!! And even if you could the fact N is angling for anything > must show a better than min hand, again an inference you arent > entitled to. > > 3) N could have been considering showing a heart tolerance instead of > rebidding minimal spades. Suggested action: Pass. > > +++ same as (1) and again would .. should bid 3H. Infact with 5 or 6 > poor spades and a doubleton heart the case is much stronger to give > preference as opener could be 6/4 or 6/5 in the reds. > > 4) N could have been considering showing a heart tolerance instead of > rebidding maximal spades. Suggested action: 4S > > +++ So the next time this sequence comes up they solve this problem by > pausing again ? The core problem here is that N/S are playing a silly > sequence. 3D as 4 card NF on a hand known to contain a max of 15 > points opposite a possible 6/7 count misfit is daft. BUT thats the > way they play it. All the hands in this thread and numerous others > are going to cause responder untold grief. To solve their problem > they tank and then bid a NF 3S ... "Got a problem here pd .. got a few > extras but cant show it using this wonderful system" > > 5) N could have extra values, and be worried that 3S is an underbid > (the actual hand, but it doesn't matter). Suggested action: 4S > > +++ AGREE. Of course he has extras and of course they are spade > oriented. The only real difficulty is a 3.5 Spade bid. Any red suit > decision or 3NT decision is not hard. > > > Bottom line the 3S shows more than min, probably a 3.5 spade hand. It > isnt trying to decide whether to pass, support heart or bid 3NT ... > these are easy decisions. > > A smooth 3S NF bid ... WILL ... have a sufficient amount of peer > passers to make pass a LA, this is unarguable. So 4S or any bid with > this hand cant be allowed. > > > Why I started the thread though is more the "lawyer" versus "punter" > angle. I would predict that maybe 8 or 9 out of 10 E/W would (a) not > notice the problem on this sequence (b) even if they did wouldnt have > the bridge laws knowledge to call the td and state their case > > So to me it looks like those with knowledge of the laws are in a > position to gain over the "punter" .... a tad unfair ? > > Karel > > You agree with one of my options, but don't show how S can tell that it is the option that N was considering. Your arguments that the BIT can only show a 3.5 spade bid are specious. N could have more than a min, but could also be angling for the best strain in a minimum misfit. Or, possibly, angling for NT. Any of this would produce a BIT. How do you tell which is which? If you're S, you can't. You need to take some of the thoughts here to the logical conclusion. There is UI, and there are LA's. However, forget the N hand for a bit, and look only at the problem facing S. Does the BIT make the S call easier? If so, then there is likely to be a case that the call was demonstrably suggested. If I were holding the S hand, there are a sufficient number of alternatives for the BIT that I couldn't sort out which one was applicable. Since different LA's are suggested, the BIT does not demonstrably suggest one LA over another. Any call stands, as the AC determined. Any punter will see the BIT, and then scream for the TD when S bids again. "Partner hesistated, so he's got to pass" is a the punter's argument. Someone with more knowledge of L16 may well realize that since no LA is demonstrably suggested, then there is no point to calling the TD, unless the TD is also of the "If it hesitates, shoot it" school. The only advantage here is to the punters, who will reflexively call the TD when an opponent bids after a hesitation. If they get a TD that is also a relative punter, they get a bad ruling to their advantage. In this case, the AC were NOT punters, and restored the correct score. Since you were the original OP, you might want to look more closely into the rationale of the AC if it is available to you. I'm willing to bet that what you wrote is a far from complete summary of the ruling. Hirsch From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Dec 16 15:17:20 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:17:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4947B870.6010707@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] I suggest that in order for Law 16B1(b) to be consistent with Law 75A, the phrase "using the methods of the partnership" necessarily needs to be interpreted as "using what the player Lawfully believes are the methods of the partnership". [Nigel] Thank you Richard :) As with so much other Bridge Legislation, problems evaporate if you guess the intentions of the rule-makers and ignore what they write :) [Robert Frick] I disagree with Nigel; I think this is an excellent contribution. [Nigel] I've reinserted the quote that Robert snipped. I *agree* that it is likely that Richard has correctly guessed the intentions of the law-makers. So, perhaps, Robert agrees with me in spite of his protest to the contrary. Amusingly, Herman De Wael's "heresies" become "bible truth" with a similar but less stretched "interpretation" in in a different context :) From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Dec 16 18:00:31 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:00:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : > (a) N/S claim that the 1S shows 8+ points. I think we can all assume > that what they really mean is that a 1 level response indicates a hand > that is worth a bid in responders mind. It is ludicrous to suggest > they pass with a 7 or even 6 count, heart void and 6+ spades for > example or 5044 where a secondary fit even 4/3 will play alot better. > > AG : that's why I assumed a 2S bid would be weak (1st case) ; this seems to be a logical consequence of 1S being 8+. The 2nd case is less obvious ; I've seen some Precisioneers pass on an 3-suiter, a bit to avoid a 3H rebid, a bit to trap opponenets. Now, if one plays 2S as meaning "I have long spades and no hope for game facing a moderately fitting maximum", then this 3S means "I've some hope for game facing the same hand", so I'd bid 4S - except that 3S remains a LA with only 109 bare of spades. > (b) 3S as NF means that responder has 6 - 10 (probably 9 max) points. > AG : ISTM N/S are semi-walruses and when they mean 8+, it is 8+. Anyway, you'll need strong evidence to pretend the contrary. So, 8-10 here. (unless, of course, 3S was forcing). Best regards Alain From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Dec 16 19:47:19 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:47:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 References: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <18722B3F631D4D5590972BE4FA5361E8@MARVLAPTOP> Recently my partner opened 1H-P-1NT by me and LHO bid 2S, not noticed by partner, who bid 2H. The TD came, the 2H bid was not condoned, and my partner was told that if she bids 3H there is no further consequences. So she bid 3H. My hand had K9 of hearts and KQxx in clubs, and I had an ethical dilemma. Going by what the TD said I passed 3H, treating the 2H bid as AI. Had partner bid 3H immediately over 2S, however, I would have raised. If 3H had made on the nose, the opponents could have called the TD, who should probably change the contract to 4H-1 in accordance with L27D. Right? Wrong!..."the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred" would have been a 4H contract! There's something wrong about this. The insufficient bid should certainly be UI (extraneous information), and both pairs should be told that. At the very least, the last sentence of L27D should be deleted. Luckily for my conscience, 4H was cold. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 16 20:04:18 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:04:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Karel a ?crit : > (a) N/S claim that the 1S shows 8+ points. I think we can all assume > that what they really mean is that a 1 level response indicates a hand > that is worth a bid in responders mind. It is ludicrous to suggest > they pass with a 7 or even 6 count, heart void and 6+ spades for > example or 5044 where a secondary fit even 4/3 will play alot better. > > AG : that's why I assumed a 2S bid would be weak (1st case) ; this seems to be a logical consequence of 1S being 8+. The 2nd case is less obvious ; I've seen some Precisioneers pass on an 3-suiter, a bit to avoid a 3H rebid, a bit to trap opponenets. MB: Even playing 2S as weak, one shouldn't bid it unless his hand is truly one-suited and playing in another strain is practically excluded. I'm playing such methods myself (Polish Club, not Precision, but with weak-jump responses, not GF) and the weak-jump is never done with partial support for opener's suit or with at least moderate quality side 4-card suit. It is important to make things easy for the opener, e.g. having 15-16PC 1-5-5-2 he may calmly pass 2S response without fear that 5D is cold. Otherwise he would have to bid 3D and it could end in 3S -1 instead of 2S =. Anyway, having one-suited hand, with which the player stretched to make 1S response, now he would bid easily. But having the hand close between 2S and 1S would now result in the difficult decision to make for the responder and could be well the reason for the hesitation. AG: Now, if one plays 2S as meaning "I have long spades and no hope for game facing a moderately fitting maximum", then this 3S means "I've some hope for game facing the same hand", so I'd bid 4S - except that 3S remains a LA with only 109 bare of spades. MB: Still there are many 8-9PC hands making the game poor. But I don't understand why are you still trying to justify that pass is a LA, but 4S in not bad. *Everybody* agrees that pass is a LA. Me and Hirsch claim that 4S was not demonstrably suggested, Karel disagrees. Maybe you will take your stance? > (b) 3S as NF means that responder has 6 - 10 (probably 9 max) points. > AG : ISTM N/S are semi-walruses and when they mean 8+, it is 8+. Anyway, you'll need strong evidence to pretend the contrary. So, 8-10 here. (unless, of course, 3S was forcing). MB: I disagree. Very small minority is attached to the Point Count so fervently. Yes, there is a quite large group of bunnies who use HCP as the only real method of explicit evaluation, but they still frequently stretch the bidding. They will say "it just looked good", not being aware of actually applying the same kind of evaluation as the better players. In Polish Club responses promise 7+, but you would find it very difficult to find any player who wouldn't rebid 1S with QJT9x xx xx KT9x or even with QJTxx Kx xx xxxx. So your "semi-walruses" would need to present strong evidence that they *always* require 8+. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 16 21:48:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:48:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 References: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl> <18722B3F631D4D5590972BE4FA5361E8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <005401c95fbf$a5debcc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Recently my partner opened 1H-P-1NT by me and LHO bid 2S, not > noticed by partner, who bid 2H. The TD came, the 2H bid was not > condoned, and my partner was told that if she bids 3H there is no > further consequences. So she bid 3H. > > My hand had K9 of hearts and KQxx in clubs, and I had an ethical > dilemma. Going by what the TD said I passed 3H, treating the 2H bid > as AI. Had partner bid 3H immediately over 2S, however, I would have > raised. > > If 3H had made on the nose, the opponents could have called the TD, > who should probably change the contract to 4H-1 in accordance with > L27D. Right? > > Wrong!..."the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid > not occurred" would have been a 4H contract! I assume that you meant "a 3H contract". Probably your partner would pass after the 2S, you would balance with a double and she would bid 3H. > There's something wrong about this. The insufficient bid should > certainly be UI (extraneous information), and both pairs should be > told that. > At the very least, the last sentence of L27D should be deleted. I agree with you, but I have a strong suspicion that what looks wrong for us was actually the conscious intention of some of the lawmakers. There is a growing trend to help the infractors to land on their feets and to deny the non-offenders any profits from their opponents' mistakes and irregularities. ACBL still holds the ground, but in Europe this situation lasts already for many years. Just read what Ton, Grattan and other European TDs are writing here. What is a standard method of coping with something disruptive? To look at the grounds and dispose of the source of the troubles. If my neighbour spits at my door regularly, the solution is not to wash the doors every time. The solution is to force the neighbour to stop spitting. The real-life lawmakers know that and the neighbour would be severely punished if he refuses to comply. But the bridge lawmakers seem to think that it is enough for them to hire the charlady who would wash the door. That way everybody is happy and we should all chant "Hallelujah". Moonshine. Knowing that my doors are spitted at is irritating and frustrating for me. The charlady sometimes won't be able to wash the spittle instantly and it will remain for some time at my door. And it may happen that I open the door in the same moment as my neighbour spits, so I will be spitted at my face. That's how I feel sometimes when I see that the players who don't bother to obey the rules end up with the same result as me. Because I put serious efforts to watch carefully what is happening, whose turn it is to bid, who is on the lead, which bidding-card am I pulling from the bidding-box, which card am I playing etc etc. I strongly try to remeber my system as well as possible, not to misinform my opponents, not to use any UI I get, to claim properly. All of that costs mental energy, which may lack at the end of the long competition. And the lawmakers believe that the player who doesn't care for spending this mental energy, who causes many troubles, bad feelings, disruption to the game should end as well as me on average (or at most slightly worse). Calling it "unfair" would be a horrible understatement. Well, actually fairness is not important for the authorities. The fees I pay are the same as the fees payed by the disruptors. And they are in the majority so *this is important*. Pure economy incorporated in the game which used to be a test for the mental and intellectual skills. The new version of 21-century humanity. "Where do I come from? ... Seek out the roughest, most horrible path: the prints of feet bloodied on hard rock; the tattered remnants of the soul laid bare by thorny bramble will show you the way that leads to my cradle. Where am I going? ...Pass through the saddest, most somber wilderness; a valley of eternal snow and of eternal melancholy mists. There where you find a solitary stone without any inscription where oblivion dwells, there my tomb will be." Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 16 22:16:36 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:16:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002a01c95f27$2439c9a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: "...one of our top regional players said he actually has no special reason for the change, he simply saw that many top players switched..." Imps (Butler Pairs scored against a datum) Dlr: East Vul: North-South You, South, hold: KJT7654 --- QJ2 A76 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1H 1S (1) 4H Pass(2) Pass ? (1) Many top players have switched to overcalling 3S on this hand, efficiently taking away East-West's bidding space, but South has an inefficient style and judgement. (2) If North had doubled, many top players have switched to playing the efficient responsive double, but the North-South inefficient agreement is that a hypothetical double by North would be inefficiently purely for penalties. What efficient call do you make? What other efficient calls do you consider making? Did Stephen Covey write "The Seven Habits of Highly Efficient People"? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 16 22:58:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:58:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4947B082.5040204@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: >The problem with a single message board/forum is that the occasional >useful posting is likely to get overwhelmed among the amount of non- >useful stuff. Richard Hills: Snooty literary critics have argued for decades that most of the science-fiction field was filled with rubbish, therefore was not worth any critical attention. Science-fiction author and critic Theodore Sturgeon agreed that science-fiction was 90% rubbish, but then formulated his famous Sturgeon's Second Law, "Ninety percent of everything is crud". (Sturgeon's less well-known First Law is, "Nothing is always absolutely so.") Since winners of the Booker Prize are 90% rubbish, I refuse to read them, preferring the 10% of good stuff in science-fiction (my recommended science-fiction reading list emailed on request). Brian Meadows: >If the WBFLC *really* wanted to get input from the bridge world at >large, the way to do it would be to ask for some volunteers, and set >up a couple of cascaded mailing lists. On the lowest level and >public list, have a few volunteers such as yours truly, who really >don't have the expertise to do much more than weed out duplicate >postings plus the obvious wackoes. Richard Hills: Exactly what volunteer Grattan Endicott did in reading blml in the lead-up to the current Lawbook. Although Grattan had the patience to read an obviously whacko posting on fouled boards which caused him to suggest to the Drafting Committee a change from the 1997 Law 87A phrase: "did not play the board in identical form." to the 2007 Law 87A phrase: "or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form for such reason." So whackoes can have a negative benefit, identifying loopholes which no sensible Director would wriggle through, but might as well be closed to prevent idiot Directors giving idiosyncratic rulings. Brian Meadows: >Anything which looks sensible, said volunteers post to a second, and >private, mailing list, where at least a couple of our expert TDs are >subscribed. Richard Hills: Just such a private email list and a webpage was used to consult with the official Laws experts in each NBO from December 2006 onwards, an improvement on the total lack of a private email list and a webpage when the 1975 Lawbook was being drafted. Tsk, tsk, Edgar Kaplan for not establishing such a private email list and a webpage in 1974. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 16 23:26:13 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:26:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Maciej Bystry: > > "...one of our top regional players said he actually has no > special reason for the change, he simply saw that many top > players switched..." > > Imps (Butler Pairs scored against a datum) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > You, South, hold: > > KJT7654 > --- > QJ2 > A76 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H 1S (1) > 4H Pass(2) Pass ? > > (1) Many top players have switched to overcalling 3S on this > hand, efficiently taking away East-West's bidding space, but > South has an inefficient style and judgement. Disputable. This hand is an absolute maximum of 3S overcall, justified only red vs white. Were partner the passed hand it would be more reasonable. > (2) If North had doubled, many top players have switched to > playing the efficient responsive double, but the North-South > inefficient agreement is that a hypothetical double by North > would be inefficiently purely for penalties. Very rare. HCP doubles are popular, yes, but "trump" double in this position I saw last time 6 years ago made by a non-bridge player (beginner playing bridge for 40 years). > What efficient call do you make? You really ask? At IMPs there is no LA to 4S. And if your partner really may not have purely penalty double anything other is insane. At matchpoints the risk of -500 would make pass a LA. > What other efficient calls do you consider making? None. > Did Stephen Covey write "The Seven Habits of Highly Efficient > People"? I don't care. I'm too lenient to google it. But I'll overcome my lenience to deny your suggestion that all the methods are used because they are objectivly better (some kind of an evolution). Methods are dependent on technical merit, ease in appliance, ease in remebering, tradition, habits. Methods can't be viewed without the influence they may have on the system as the whole. Many methods were never prooved to apply better than other in the common situations, great theoreticians quarrel about it and there is no objective conclusion. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 00:00:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:00:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c95f45$c5346fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry, straw man argument: >So despite the fact that the calls above 3NT are deemed self-alertable you >would rule that asking about such calls is equal to asking about non- >alerted calls, not equal to asking about alerted ones? Then the whole >concept of "self-alertability" is absurd and redundant. Richard Hills: No, what I said was: (a) self-Alerted calls the ABF deems are equivalent to Alerted calls, and (b) asking about self-Alerted and Alerted calls is a _lesser_ Law 16 risk than asking about non-Alerted calls, but I did _not_ say: (c) asking about a self-Alerted or Alerted call is a _zero_ Law 16 risk. EBU White Book paraphrase of WBF LC minute 30th October 2001, item 8: "A question about the meaning of a call (even of an alerted call) may provide unauthorised information to partner. For example, suppose a Stayman 2C response to 1NT is alerted in accordance with the regulations for the tournament and a player then asks its meaning. A partner of the enquirer who subsequently leads a club against an ensuing 3NT may well be called upon to demonstrate that he has a hand from which very few players would choose an opening lead in a different suit. The point is that it is not safe to assume that a question provides no unauthorised information just because it is about an alerted call." Maciej Bystry, straw man argument: >Richard, it is a high time for you to change the colours and join the dWS >camp. "UI is the greatest evil, because the greatest evil is UI, and it is >really UI, which the greatest of evils is". Richard Hills: If Maciej wishes to play highly efficient but poorly effective methods, which cannot work without creating extraordinary amounts of UI to partner, he cannot complain if his partner is more often constrained by "demonstrably suggested" than the Law 16 constraints placed on my partner, due to the Ali- Hills partnership playing very inefficient but highly effective methods. (System notes, for those who like inefficiency, emailed on request.) Maciej Bystry: >PS: If my sick humour offends anyone, I apologize in advance. Sitting the >whole night coding, close to insanity. Richard Hills: No, a private email sent to me is equally applicable to Maciej: "And don't worry about the length of your postings. I always enjoy them; you have a good sense of humour and thus they are amusing." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Tue Dec 16 23:56:40 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:56:40 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49483228.2000304@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well, one of the side-effects of a process carried out under high levels of secrecy is that those not privy to the internal workings will sometimes suggest ideas which are already in place - as, or so it would seem from your comments, I've come very close to doing. So what's your problem? Apart from this obsessive need to try to make yourself appear cleverer than other posters, of course. Brian. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: | Brian Meadows: | |> The problem with a single message board/forum is that the occasional |> useful posting is likely to get overwhelmed among the amount of non- |> useful stuff. | | Richard Hills: | | Snooty literary critics have argued for decades that most of the | science-fiction field was filled with rubbish, therefore was not | worth any critical attention. Science-fiction author and critic | Theodore Sturgeon agreed that science-fiction was 90% rubbish, but | then formulated his famous Sturgeon's Second Law, "Ninety percent of | everything is crud". (Sturgeon's less well-known First Law is, | "Nothing is always absolutely so.") | | Since winners of the Booker Prize are 90% rubbish, I refuse to read | them, preferring the 10% of good stuff in science-fiction (my | recommended science-fiction reading list emailed on request). | | Brian Meadows: | |> If the WBFLC *really* wanted to get input from the bridge world at |> large, the way to do it would be to ask for some volunteers, and set |> up a couple of cascaded mailing lists. On the lowest level and |> public list, have a few volunteers such as yours truly, who really |> don't have the expertise to do much more than weed out duplicate |> postings plus the obvious wackoes. | | Richard Hills: | | Exactly what volunteer Grattan Endicott did in reading blml in the | lead-up to the current Lawbook. Although Grattan had the patience | to read an obviously whacko posting on fouled boards which caused | him to suggest to the Drafting Committee a change from the 1997 Law | 87A phrase: | | "did not play the board in identical form." | | to the 2007 Law 87A phrase: | | "or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed | between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should | have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form | for such reason." | | So whackoes can have a negative benefit, identifying loopholes which | no sensible Director would wriggle through, but might as well be | closed to prevent idiot Directors giving idiosyncratic rulings. | | Brian Meadows: | |> Anything which looks sensible, said volunteers post to a second, and |> private, mailing list, where at least a couple of our expert TDs are |> subscribed. | | Richard Hills: | | Just such a private email list and a webpage was used to consult with | the official Laws experts in each NBO from December 2006 onwards, an | improvement on the total lack of a private email list and a webpage | when the 1975 Lawbook was being drafted. Tsk, tsk, Edgar Kaplan for | not establishing such a private email list and a webpage in 1974. | | | Best wishes | | Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 | Telephone: 02 6223 8453 | Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au | Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets | | | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFJSDIogLujL0lynd0RAnduAJ4iwfQJMFjLKQhc9rv2NfdktLAvIgCYye/0 aYZaITYtVnOqUKb3Jzraew== =bv9o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 17 00:12:19 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:12:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> [Bystry] > You, South, hold: > > KJT7654 > --- > QJ2 > A76 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H 1S (1) > 4H Pass(2) Pass ? > > (1) Many top players have switched to overcalling 3S on this > hand, efficiently taking away East-West's bidding space, but > South has an inefficient style and judgement. > What efficient call do you make? You really ask? At IMPs there is no LA to 4S. And if your partner really may not have purely penalty double anything other is insane. At matchpoints the risk of -500 would make pass a LA. [DALB] I am getting a bit sick of this sort of thing - it is no more than the New Old Black Magic at work. If your hand is worth 4S over 4H, why was it not worth 4S over 1H? David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 00:54:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 10:54:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49483228.2000304@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: Richard Hills: [big snip] >>improvement on the total lack of a private email list and a webpage >>when the 1975 Lawbook was being drafted. Tsk, tsk, Edgar Kaplan for >>not establishing such a private email list and a webpage in 1974. Brian Meadows: [snip] >So what's your problem? Apart from this obsessive need to try to make >yourself appear cleverer than other posters, of course. Richard Hills: Actually, I was trying to point out that I was _not_ cleverer than Edgar Kaplan, despite me being clever enough to use email in 2004, but Edgar Kaplan being foolish enough to eschew email in 1974. There is a discredited school of English historians, which has been given the derogatory sobriquet by its opponents, "I voted Labour in 1066". The point being is that the discredited school ignored the effect of available technology on local culture. So one cannot criticise Edgar Kaplan for being insufficiently consultative on the new 1975 Lawbook in 1974 because he did not use email (indeed, Edgar did the best he could by publicly requesting Bridge World subscribers to send in ideas). The best fictional example of available technology affecting local culture is L. Sprague de Camp's "Lest Darkness Fall", in which an accidental time-traveller from the 20th century arrives in 6th century Rome, and single-handed prevents the onset of the Dark Ages by introducing technologies such as the printing press and double-entry bookkeeping. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 17 01:04:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:04:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> Message-ID: [DALB] I am getting a bit sick of this sort of thing - it is no more than the New Old Black Magic at work. If your hand is worth 4S over 4H, why was it not worth 4S over 1H? [RJBH] Circumstances alter cases. Initially LHO could have held six spades and zero hearts. Now that possibility is precluded, but LHO might still hold zero spades and six hearts. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From karel at esatclear.ie Wed Dec 17 01:13:20 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:13:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: I suppose my argument is simple. If as you are trying to suggest responder was thinking about a heart raise or a diamond raise or a heart signoff or a diamond signoff (ie) he has some support for the red suits ... why oh why would he then try and play in a probable 5/2 or worse spade fit ? Makes absolutely no sense. If you have some token of red suit support and a NF hand surely you are happy ? You pass or raise. What is the problem? What are you trying to achieve by suggesting a 7 card spade fit ? Similarly for 3NT. If you have a hand which is close to 3NT (ie) you are looking at 7/8 tricks then surely it is right to bid it. If it makes great, if not the chances are 3S is not going to be any better. There is a huge plus to bidding 3NT (look at meckwell bid 3NT every opportunity). So again why fudge around with a 3S bid ? What can that possibly convey to partner to help him decide if 3NT is a good contract. You know pd has 9+ cards in the reds and precisely 14 or 15 points and almost certainly less than 3 spades. You make the decision. So a smooth 3S should indicate dont want to play in your red suits, I dont think we can make game opposite your narrowly defined hand and I dont think we can make 3NT. Seems perfectly logical ? So a 3H with a pause says upper end preference. Pass with a pause, upper end pass, I was thinking about maybe 3NT, definitely not spades. 4D/4H/3NT with a pause - probably indicate a stretch. The actual bid was pause 3S not any of the above. So all the above are ruled out. So we are left with a 3.5S raise which is why 4S is now alot easier to bid. Dont kid yourself - people dont think about 3NT, passing, raising a red suit ... and then suddenly ah no I'll bid 3S!! Their bid reflects their problem ... here it was spades. Your arguments for the other cases are thin at best while the glaringly obvious and most likely should rule out the 4S bid. As a note the TD asked various peers what they would bid and the vast majority of them passed. On this basis he ruled against N/S. It doesnt appear that any of them considered a smooth 3S bid to be anything other than face value and didnt consider their hand worth 4S. K. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 17 01:15:07 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:15:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> Message-ID: <001001c95fdc$85763450$90629cf0$@com> [RJBH] Circumstances alter cases. Initially LHO could have held six spades and zero hearts. Now that possibility is precluded, but LHO might still hold zero spades and six hearts. What's the problem? [DALB] And he might also hold six spades and six hearts. That is the problem. Or, more specifically, the problem is that players with hands such as KJ10xxxx None QJx Axx never have to worry about the auction (1H) 1S (4H) Double (Pass) any more, because they know when partner has made an action double and when he has made a penalty double (even if the partnership has never explicitly discussed the sequence). Moreover, almost all of them know whether, if he passes instead of doubling, that is an action pass or a non-penalty pass. David Burn London, England From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Dec 17 01:23:08 2008 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:23:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Efficient In-Reply-To: <200812162323.mBGNN083002092@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200812162323.mBGNN083002092@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4948466C.6010602@nhcc.net> > From: "David Burn" > If your hand is worth 4S over 4H, why was it not > worth 4S over 1H? I'm surprised at this. Not all hands "worth" 4S have to bid it directly. In particular, a direct 4S gives up captaincy. Hands that don't want to do that (such as the example KJT7654 -- QJ2 A76) might well start with 1S then decide what to do later. The problem, of course, is that one's later options may be restricted if partner fails to act in tempo. On the actual hand, I think 4S is normal at IMPs, but pass and perhaps double (depending on your overcall style) look like logical alternatives. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 17 01:39:49 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:39:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Richard. Brian's exact proposal fit his situation better than the construction/modification of laws. But the idea (somone to try to filter out noise) might be used in a modified way if there is a problem of too much noise to signal. Do you think more public input would have helped with the 2007 laws? I think you said that one attempt, to consolidate similar laws and reorganize things, could not be done with the system that was used for 2007. That's why we still have two different UI laws. Also, if it was thought was to include the public in the laws, it would be foolish to start this for the first time for the 2018 laws. Instead, start it for the yearly WBFLC meetings, to learn what works and doesn't work. IMO, the yearly meetings by the WBFLC could also benefit from public input. For example, if someone had pointed out that their rewrite of L20F1 apparently applies to auctions with insufficient bids, I strongly suspect it would have been worded differently. Bob > Brian Meadows: > >> The problem with a single message board/forum is that the occasional >> useful posting is likely to get overwhelmed among the amount of non- >> useful stuff. > > Richard Hills: > > Snooty literary critics have argued for decades that most of the > science-fiction field was filled with rubbish, therefore was not > worth any critical attention. Science-fiction author and critic > Theodore Sturgeon agreed that science-fiction was 90% rubbish, but > then formulated his famous Sturgeon's Second Law, "Ninety percent of > everything is crud". (Sturgeon's less well-known First Law is, > "Nothing is always absolutely so.") > > Since winners of the Booker Prize are 90% rubbish, I refuse to read > them, preferring the 10% of good stuff in science-fiction (my > recommended science-fiction reading list emailed on request). > > Brian Meadows: > >> If the WBFLC *really* wanted to get input from the bridge world at >> large, the way to do it would be to ask for some volunteers, and set >> up a couple of cascaded mailing lists. On the lowest level and >> public list, have a few volunteers such as yours truly, who really >> don't have the expertise to do much more than weed out duplicate >> postings plus the obvious wackoes. > > Richard Hills: > > Exactly what volunteer Grattan Endicott did in reading blml in the > lead-up to the current Lawbook. Although Grattan had the patience > to read an obviously whacko posting on fouled boards which caused > him to suggest to the Drafting Committee a change from the 1997 Law > 87A phrase: > > "did not play the board in identical form." > > to the 2007 Law 87A phrase: > > "or if he determines that the dealer or vulnerability differed > between copies of the same board, and the contestants who should > have had a score comparison did not play the board in identical form > for such reason." > > So whackoes can have a negative benefit, identifying loopholes which > no sensible Director would wriggle through, but might as well be > closed to prevent idiot Directors giving idiosyncratic rulings. > > Brian Meadows: > >> Anything which looks sensible, said volunteers post to a second, and >> private, mailing list, where at least a couple of our expert TDs are >> subscribed. > > Richard Hills: > > Just such a private email list and a webpage was used to consult with > the official Laws experts in each NBO from December 2006 onwards, an > improvement on the total lack of a private email list and a webpage > when the 1975 Lawbook was being drafted. Tsk, tsk, Edgar Kaplan for > not establishing such a private email list and a webpage in 1974. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act > 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the > department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Dec 17 01:52:50 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:52:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 In-Reply-To: <005401c95fbf$a5debcc0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl> <18722B3F631D4D5590972BE4FA5361E8@MARVLAPTOP> <005401c95fbf$a5debcc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:48:27 -0500, Bystry wrote: > Hi, > >> Recently my partner opened 1H-P-1NT by me and LHO bid 2S, not >> noticed by partner, who bid 2H. The TD came, the 2H bid was not >> condoned, and my partner was told that if she bids 3H there is no >> further consequences. So she bid 3H. >> >> My hand had K9 of hearts and KQxx in clubs, and I had an ethical >> dilemma. Going by what the TD said I passed 3H, treating the 2H bid >> as AI. Had partner bid 3H immediately over 2S, however, I would have >> raised. >> >> If 3H had made on the nose, the opponents could have called the TD, >> who should probably change the contract to 4H-1 in accordance with >> L27D. Right? >> >> Wrong!..."the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid >> not occurred" would have been a 4H contract! > > I assume that you meant "a 3H contract". Probably your partner would pass > after the 2S, you would balance with a double and she would bid 3H. > >> There's something wrong about this. The insufficient bid should >> certainly be UI (extraneous information), and both pairs should be >> told that. >> At the very least, the last sentence of L27D should be deleted. > > I agree with you, but I have a strong suspicion that what looks wrong > for us > was actually the conscious intention of some of the lawmakers. There is a > growing trend to help the infractors to land on their feets and to deny > the > non-offenders any profits from their opponents' mistakes and > irregularities. > ACBL still holds the ground, but in Europe this situation lasts already > for > many years. Just read what Ton, Grattan and other European TDs are > writing > here. > > What is a standard method of coping with something disruptive? To look at > the grounds and dispose of the source of the troubles. If my neighbour > spits > at my door regularly, the solution is not to wash the doors every time. > The > solution is to force the neighbour to stop spitting. The real-life > lawmakers > know that and the neighbour would be severely punished if he refuses to > comply. But the bridge lawmakers seem to think that it is enough for > them to > hire the charlady who would wash the door. That way everybody is happy > and > we should all chant "Hallelujah". > > Moonshine. Knowing that my doors are spitted at is irritating and > frustrating for me. The charlady sometimes won't be able to wash the > spittle > instantly and it will remain for some time at my door. And it may happen > that I open the door in the same moment as my neighbour spits, so I will > be > spitted at my face. > > That's how I feel sometimes when I see that the players who don't bother > to > obey the rules end up with the same result as me. Because I put serious > efforts to watch carefully what is happening, whose turn it is to bid, > who > is on the lead, which bidding-card am I pulling from the bidding-box, > which > card am I playing etc etc. I strongly try to remeber my system as well as > possible, not to misinform my opponents, not to use any UI I get, to > claim > properly. All of that costs mental energy, which may lack at the end of > the > long competition. And the lawmakers believe that the player who doesn't > care > for spending this mental energy, who causes many troubles, bad feelings, > disruption to the game should end as well as me on average (or at most > slightly worse). > > Calling it "unfair" would be a horrible understatement. Well, actually > fairness is not important for the authorities. The fees I pay are the > same > as the fees payed by the disruptors. And they are in the majority so > *this > is important*. Pure economy incorporated in the game which used to be a > test > for the mental and intellectual skills. The new version of 21-century > humanity. > > "Where do I come from? ... Seek out > the roughest, most horrible path: > the prints of feet bloodied > on hard rock; > the tattered remnants of the soul > laid bare by thorny bramble > will show you the way > that leads to my cradle. > > Where am I going? ...Pass through > the saddest, most somber wilderness; > a valley of eternal snow and of eternal > melancholy mists. > There where you find a solitary stone > without any inscription > where oblivion dwells, > there my tomb will be." Your neighbor spitting on the door is a conscious choice. Conscious choices are sensitive to rewards and punishments. The laws are for the most part sufficiently punitive to prevent intentional revokes and insuficient bids. The problem is accidents. Those are relatively insensitive to rewards and punishments. The only way to reduce them is to put substantial time and effort into attention to the boring mechanics of the game, rather than the enjoyable aspects of bridge. So, if you cut off a finger every time someone revoked, you could easily cut their occurrence in half, and maybe even 70-80%. But bridge would not be as fun. A smaller point is that laws which restore equity seem to be very popular and laws which punish beyond that point are not as popular. For example, it did not seem to be in the spirit of fair play to prevent nonbarring correction of an insufficient Jacoby transfer or Stayman response. Bob, who thinks that if you want to suffer to be a better bridge player, all you have to do is count out the hand. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 02:05:30 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:05:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] L20 Versus L73C? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007b01c95e3f$90629460$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Sven Pran, rose-tinted glasses: >>I have noticed what to me seems strange: It is a fact that bridge >>originated as a game for Gentlemen (and fair ladies) who >>instinctively knew what was correct. Maciej Bystry, rose-tinted glasses: >If you have in mind behavior at the table ..... I may agree. Richard Hills: I have no personal experience of how bridge was played in the 1930s and 1940s. But I have read the entertaining history of bridge in that period, "The Walk of the Oysters". And the fact that bridge tournaments often required players to wear a uniform of evening dress did NOT mean that players were more courteous than now. For example, when the famous 1930s American player P. Hal Sims was partnering B.J. Becker, Becker perpetrated an action which Sims decided was an error. So Sims said to Becker, "You OI&*)(*&". Becker, ahead of his time, told Sims that courtesy was essential in bridge. So Sims repeated, "You OI&*)(*& ...", but then Sims courteously added the honorific, "... Mister Becker." For the rest of his extraordinarily long bridge career, B.J. Becker's universal nickname was Mister Becker. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 02:19:53 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:19:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be><004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > I suppose my argument is simple. If as you are trying to suggest > responder was thinking about a heart raise or a diamond raise or a > heart signoff or a diamond signoff (ie) he has some support for the > red suits ... why oh why would he then try and play in a probable 5/2 > or worse spade fit ? Makes absolutely no sense. If you have some > token of red suit support and a NF hand surely you are happy ? You > pass or raise. What is the problem? What are you trying to achieve > by suggesting a 7 card spade fit ? Karel, bridge is more complicated than your reasoning. Believe me or not, but sometimes one 7-trump contract is hugely better than another one. You have to envisage future play, would your spade tricks be useful in diamond or heart contract or not (because e.g. there will be no communication), is it better on average to risk that partner may have spade doubleton (and 3S makes, but 3D/3H not) or to pass (because without the spade doubleton you will be 2 down instead of one down). And don't suggest 5-card suit, in all my examples I gave, there were 6 spades. > Similarly for 3NT. If you have a hand which is close to 3NT (ie) you > are looking at 7/8 tricks then surely it is right to bid it. That is not my way of playing bridge - bidding what feels well. I try to analyze the deal, statistical layout of honours, counting the chances of contract fulfillment etc. I'm not claiming that I take much time before every call, to the contrary, I'm quite fast. But there are some positions in which your decision will probably become final. In those positions it is wise to think longer and make the right decision. The player in your case was exactly in such position. Yes, he actually had a GF, but that doesn't matter. If pass (obviously)/3H/3S/3NT are NF, they will most of the time become final contracts. 4D may be raised to 5D but you have to judge the chance of failing in 4D. Sorry, I'm probably not a peer of the actual N, but if you polled me on any occasion I would never say that the player would bid 3NT because he has some points, weak club stopper and it looks like 7/8 tricks will be made. > makes great, if not the chances are 3S is not going to be any better. Sorry, playing 3S you will take e.g. 5 spade tricks, playing 3NT you may take 5-6, but you may take 0. That is a big difference and deciding to bid 3NT with misfitting hands and less than 25HCP is not easy. > There is a huge plus to bidding 3NT (look at meckwell bid 3NT every > opportunity). "Every opportunity" is nonsense. Most of the time they have cogent reasons to do that. Playing against bunnies they can stretch more, playing against better players they will remain solid. Having 22-23HCP they will bid 3NT provided that they have a good suit which will provide tricks. Otherwise they will play a partscore. And so on. > So again why fudge around with a 3S bid ? What can > that possibly convey to partner to help him decide if 3NT is a good > contract. Nothing (except showing relatively good suit which may help him to count tricks). But 3S doesn't encourage 3NT, you are making a decision and that is a good reason to think about it. > You know pd has 9+ cards in the reds and precisely 14 or 15 > points and almost certainly less than 3 spades. You make the > decision. Right. And this decision is not so easy as it may seem to you. If you have 28HCP bidding 3NT is easy. If you have max 24 you must have appropriate additional values, otherwise you will frequently score -200. > So a smooth 3S should indicate dont want to play in your red suits, I > dont think we can make game opposite your narrowly defined hand and I > dont think we can make 3NT. Seems perfectly logical ? "Smooth"? Meaning of the bid doesn't change. > So a 3H with a pause says upper end preference. Pass with a pause, > upper end pass, I was thinking about maybe 3NT, definitely not spades. > 4D/4H/3NT with a pause - probably indicate a stretch. > > The actual bid was pause 3S not any of the above. So all the above > are ruled out. So we are left with a 3.5S raise which is why 4S is > now alot easier to bid. You completely don't understand. I'll repeat something from my previous email: [Me] Why? Yes, if he was deciding between pass and 3H he wouldn't bid 3S. But if he was deciding between: - 3S and 3NT - 3S and pass - 3S and 3H - 3S and (3D or 3H) then 4S is counter-suggested. [/Me] > Dont kid yourself - people dont think about > 3NT, passing, raising a red suit ... and then suddenly ah no I'll bid > 3S!! Their bid reflects their problem ... here it was spades. Absurd. Choosing between strains or between bids and doubles is actually much harder and much more frequent than deciding between the level in the same strain. > Your arguments for the other cases are thin at best while the > glaringly obvious and most likely should rule out the 4S bid. You think so? I'm still waiting for the examples of the hands with which you have a hard decision between bidding 3S and 4S. Provide some and we may discuss. > As a note the TD asked various peers what they would bid and the vast > majority of them passed. On this basis he ruled against N/S. It > doesnt appear that any of them considered a smooth 3S bid to be > anything other than face value and didnt consider their hand worth 4S. So what? The TD made a poor job. He forgot about "demonstrably suggested". He absolutely should ask the players what the hesitation suggests for them. That pass is a LA I know without any poll. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 02:37:06 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:37:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> Message-ID: <003901c95fe7$f8c34280$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [DALB] > > I am getting a bit sick of this sort of thing - it is no more than the New > Old Black Magic at work. If your hand is worth 4S over 4H, why was it not > worth 4S over 1H? Probably for the same reason that with that hand: S AKxxx H xxx D Kx C Kxx I would bid 4S in such auction: (1H)-1S-3H-3S but not in such auction (1H)-1S-3D(pre)-3S New Old Black Magic? :-) Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 03:24:40 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 03:24:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005101c95fee$9db4d960$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Maciej Bystry, straw man argument: I disagree with your qualification. I simply misunderstood the concept of self-alertability. For me the meaning of this word is equal with "like alerted, but the physical Alert wasn't made". > >So despite the fact that the calls above 3NT are deemed self-alertable you > >would rule that asking about such calls is equal to asking about non- > >alerted calls, not equal to asking about alerted ones? Then the whole > >concept of "self-alertability" is absurd and redundant. > > Richard Hills: > > No, what I said was: > > (a) self-Alerted calls the ABF deems are equivalent to Alerted calls, and > > (b) asking about self-Alerted and Alerted calls is a _lesser_ Law 16 risk > than asking about non-Alerted calls, but > > I did _not_ say: > > (c) asking about a self-Alerted or Alerted call is a _zero_ Law 16 risk. Ok, thanks. Could you provide me with an example how does it work in practice? [snipped about OB] I know about that. But there is a huge difference between asking about the calls which nearly anyone plays the same way (by the way - alerting Stayman is absurd and nothing strange it leads to abuse) and e.g. asking about calls that have two, popular alertable meanings or about the calls non-alertable, but played in the two, popular different ways (like with cuebids and my 2NT example). Sensible Alert Policy should uphold Alert spirit - to warn against something untypical and sometimes to serve as a way of distinguishing between two, popular meanings. That way the amount of needed questioning is highly decreased. Classical cuebid - no alert, showing specifically shortness - alert. 2D Wilkosz - no alert, 2D Multi - alert. 2NT natural - no alert, 2NT Lebensohl-like - alert. Of course in many situations there are more than one probable meaning and one most natural or most popular shouldn't be alerted. But that still reduces the need for questioning. Australian (and Polish) Alert Policy is designed *against* the possible UI abusers, not *for* their opponents who need to know the meanings of their calls. And I always thought that Alert system is solely for the benefit of the opponents. Yes, I admit, you have much more sensible Disclosure Policy - mandatory CCs, pre-Alerts. I'm speaking from my position - in Poland most players do not bother to have any CCs, or have only MiniCCs (without many important agreements), pre-Alerts aren't available. So maybe this difference is here decisive and that is a reason that Polish players break our Policy. > Maciej Bystry, straw man argument: Yes, this time I agree. And it was deliberate :-) > >Richard, it is a high time for you to change the colours and join the dWS > >camp. "UI is the greatest evil, because the greatest evil is UI, and it is > >really UI, which the greatest of evils is". > > Richard Hills: > > If Maciej wishes to play highly efficient but poorly effective methods, > which cannot work without creating extraordinary amounts of UI to partner, > he cannot complain if his partner is more often constrained by > "demonstrably > suggested" than the Law 16 constraints placed on my partner, due to the > Ali- > Hills partnership playing very inefficient but highly effective methods. > (System notes, for those who like inefficiency, emailed on request.) Effectivity is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not sure you would be allowed to play your system in Poland, except in the long matches. Nevermind, your argument is totally flawed. My method wouldn't create any UI provided that the Alert regulations were sensible. By forbidding alerting above 3NT you make less effective all methods in which the meaning of the call depends on the meaning of the opponents' call, so in fact you make less effective *nearly all methods*. "Nonsense" is moderately gentle word to describe such regulations. By making more and more thing non-alertable the regulators slowly head for the banishment of all the Alerts. I'm not fundamentally opposed to this idea, but what will we have instead? Nigel's "Announce protocol"? I hope not. Maybe mandatory, very detailed System Cards? That would work, but would be a death for pick-up partnerships. Anyway, the regulators shouldn't make it more difficult for the players to obtain something they are fully due according to the laws *before* they devise and apply something in its place. My proposal - written *announcements* of untypical and bi-popular meanings of the calls delivered only to the opponents. > Maciej Bystry: > > >PS: If my sick humour offends anyone, I apologize in advance. Sitting the > >whole night coding, close to insanity. > > Richard Hills: > > No, a private email sent to me is equally applicable to Maciej: > > "And don't worry about the length of your postings. I always enjoy them; > you > have a good sense of humour and thus they are amusing." Thanks. I'm worried about the reactions because I sometimes use strong language and irony, close to acridity. Everyone who feels that I break some borders is free to point it to me and I'll try as much as I can to conform. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 03:48:43 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:48:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asked: >>Do you think more public input would have helped with the 2007 laws? In early 2007, Ton Kooijman publicly wrote: >http://www.bridge.nl/groepen/Wedstrijdzaken/WEKOwijzers/wekowijzer105.pdf > >Spelregels 2008 door Ton Kooijman > >Op dit moment ligt er een voorstel voor de nieuwe spelregels ter >commentaar bij alle bridgebonden, de laws-committee van de WBF en >dergelijke. Er wordt omzichtig mee omgesprongen maar het lijkt me geen >kwaad kunnen er wat over te vertellen. Dan beperk ik me tot de >belangrijke wijzigingen en boven-dien stip ik nog een aantal kwesties aan >waar-van ik denk dat ze nog verbeterd kunnen wor-den. Daartoe hoop ik >alsnog de mogelijkheid te krijgen als lid van de commissie die de >wijzigingen (heeft) voorbereid(t). > >Hier gaan we. [big snip] Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 04:39:01 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:39:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 References: <001d01c95f56$cd2bdd80$15844c59@chello.pl><18722B3F631D4D5590972BE4FA5361E8@MARVLAPTOP><005401c95fbf$a5debcc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <006701c95ff9$0080b460$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Your neighbor spitting on the door is a conscious choice. Conscious > choices are sensitive to rewards and punishments. The laws are for the > most part sufficiently punitive to prevent intentional revokes and > insuficient bids. Yes, I know that my example is not fully adequate. So let the neighbour be ill and his spitting is unintentional. Then he should be forced to carry a foilbag and spit into it. Only when he refuses to comply, he will be penalised. But the main idea remains - *I* shouldn't be in the worse position because my neighbour has a habit of spitting, whether intentional or not. > The problem is accidents. Those are relatively insensitive to rewards and > punishments. I disagree. Most of the infractions are not made deliberately, but they are caused by inattention and carelessness which *are* deliberate. People are simply lenient and your beneath-stated opinion only confirms that. > The only way to reduce them is to put substantial time and effort into > attention to the boring mechanics of the game, rather than the enjoyable > aspects of bridge. And don't you think that everyone should do all they can to make the game enjoyable for *all* the players, not only for themselves? That's the crux of the matter. Revokes, insufficient bids, LOOTs, faulty claims, MI, use of UI - all of that disturbs the game and is *not* enjoyable for the opponents. Nobody likes TD interventions, disputes, wasting the time. Want it or not, the lawmakers formulated the correct procedure. They could state different laws - correct your call to another if you wish, LOOT should stand, revoke should stand, disputed claim is voided and the play continues, everyone is free to use UI, everybody has to cope with any MI alone etc. Would you like to play such "bridge"? > So, if you cut off a finger every time someone revoked, > you could easily cut their occurrence in half, and maybe even 70-80%. But > bridge would not be as fun. I'm opposed to pure penalisation. I advocate *bearing the responsibility*. Those who fail to comply to the rules unintentionally shouldn't get PPs in most of the cases. But contrary to the opinion of our bridge lawmakers I firmly believe that the score adjustments *have to* be an indemnity to the NOS for taking away the enjoyment from them and *have to* be a deterrent for the OS. That doesn't mean the NOS should automaticly get a top and the OS a zero. But the offenders should have something to remember, something which will incline them to pay more attention to the game in the future. If infracting is costless there will be more infractions - that is something widely known in the real-life and it surely applies to bridge. Do you really want more infractions to be present? > A smaller point is that laws which restore equity seem to be very popular > and laws which punish beyond that point are not as popular. Yes, but have you thought about the reasons? Frequent offenders will always support "equity" laws. And most of the players are bunnies who frequently infract. So most players support "equity" laws. :-) It's a pure calculation - if I'm revoking frequently I will support "equity" revoke laws, if I'm revoked against frequently I will support harsher laws. There is more behind that but I don't want to elaborate now. Maybe I'll issue a separate topic when I have enough afflatus. > For example, > it did not seem to be in the spirit of fair play to prevent nonbarring > correction of an insufficient Jacoby transfer or Stayman response. "Fair play"? What we are talking about? Breaking the rules is almost never "fair play". I'm not strongly opposed to allow for such corrections. But nearly always substitued call won't transmit *identical* information as the insuffcient one. It is easy to write something about inclusions, it is much harder to find the bridge situation in which that is true. Even your Stayman and transfers aren't well suited. Sometimes you have a hand with which you would bid Stayman after 1NT, but not after 2NT (having 28-30 HCP and relatively balanced hands 3NT is often as good as 4M but pays off better). Sometimes you would transfer after 1NT to give partner the choice but after 2NT you wouldn't. I support the desire to make more auctions playable. But here the cost is too high. It opens the free road for the "semi-cheaters" who wouldn't do something like concealed communication, but here won't resist the temptation to hide something from their knowledge about their system. And it causes many problems of the at-the-table application. > Bob, who thinks that if you want to suffer to be a better bridge player, > all you have to do is count out the hand. Regards Maciej, in whose opinion the prime responsibility of every player is to obey the rules, only secondarily to play well From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 04:54:55 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:54:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005101c95fee$9db4d960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: A.J. Balfour, British Prime Minister 1902-1905 (nephew of Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister 1855-1856, 1886-1892 and 1895-1902): "I do not think that any rational or sober man will say that what is justifiable against a tyrannical King may not under certain circumstances be justifiable against a tyrannical majority." Maciej Bystry: [big snip] >Maybe mandatory, very detailed System Cards? That would work, >but would be a death for pick-up partnerships. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes, mandatory and very detailed four-page System Cards ( see: http://www.abf.com.au/system/index.html ) are one reason the ABF Alert Regulations work so well. But I would vote _life_ for pick-up partnerships, since spending 15 minutes before the session filling out the System Cards vastly reduces the number of -800 misunderstandings the pick-up partnership would otherwise have. The ACBL System Card has been traditionally combined with the session scorecard (not sure whether this tradition continues -- perhaps an ACBL blmler could enlighten me), hence even regular ACBL partnerships had to rewrite their System Cards each session, increasing the risk of superficial and/or erroneous System Cards. In the ABF, on the other hand, System Cards and score cards are separate documents, so many regular ABF partnerships go to the trouble of carefully completing their very detailed four-page System Cards, then laminating the outcome. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Dec 17 05:55:56 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:55:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003901c95fe7$f8c34280$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> <003901c95fe7$f8c34280$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000001c96003$bf985650$3ec902f0$@com> [Bystry] Probably for the same reason that with that hand: S AKxxx H xxx D Kx C Kxx I would bid 4S in such auction: (1H)-1S-3H-3S but not in such auction (1H)-1S-3D(pre)-3S [DALB] You should bid 4S in neither auction: partner knew that he had a singleton heart in the first when he bid only 3S, and he knew that you would know. You are more likely to *make* 4S in the first auction than the second, but not much more likely; a 3D pre-empt will not all that often be based on a suit headed by the ace, after all. [Bystry] New Old Black Magic? [DALB] Of course. It goes by the name of "maximal double" or "transferable values" these days, but it is exactly the same evil of which Kaplan spoke. Nowadays, we overcall 1S on your example hand above and also on KJ10xxxx None QJx Axx, and rely on cheating to handle the subsequent auction. Crede expertum - I have seen them, child. David Burn London, England From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Dec 17 06:33:40 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:33:40 -0800 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <74ADC4530B4F47788DF42511CE20A022@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > > The ACBL System Card has been traditionally combined with the > session scorecard (not sure whether this tradition continues -- > perhaps an ACBL blmler could enlighten me), hence even regular > ACBL partnerships had to rewrite their System Cards each session, > increasing the risk of superficial and/or erroneous System Cards. The system is on one side of the card, a score sheet on the other. Players use two such cards, a reusable system side displayed and a score sheet tucked behind. Except for a one-time partnership the score sheet side of the system card is not used. This is a rather strange arrangement, but no one seems to notice that. Imp games have two-sided score sheets. Most women in my club have a number of system cards in a see-through holder, one for each partnership, putting the current one to be used on top and a blank score side within. The bulkiness of the system cards makes it impossible to fold them (they are designed to be folded), so the whole thing is flopped out on the table for scoring, letting everyone see the scores. When done, the combo is put away, either in a purse or under the a____. The folded convention card saves space on the table (where the ACBL requires them to be), but with only half the agreements shown on each half one cannot see all of them at once. I turn my card (without looking at it) to put the area of current interest in view so the opponents don't have to ask unnecessary questions. But they do anyway, making us create UI unnecessarily. It's a shame that what is shown clearly on the system card is considered UI when told orally to an opponent. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 10 18:31:56 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:31:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: On 12/6/08 12:25 PM, "Torsten ?strand" wrote: > South K > None vul K J 8 > A 9 8 6 5 4 > K 4 2 > A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 > 7 2 5 3 > K Q T 3 J 7 2 > A 8 6 Q 7 3 > Q 6 3 > A Q T 9 6 4 > ? > J T 9 5 > > West North East South > 2D > Pass 2S Pass 3H > Pass 4H Pass Pass > Pass > > 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, 2S > invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South?s 3H came after a > long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the auction. > > TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to the fact > that 2[ was not alerted, South?s pause before 3H and North?s decision to > raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W?s questioning. After > the play TD was again called to the table asked for a ruling. > > It?s not clear from TD?s investigations what other options South has when > having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest choice. TD > considered that South?s failure to alert and the slow 3H-bid strongly suggests > raise with the North hand ? it?s possible that South had misunderstood the > 2S-bid. TD?s ruling was 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > N/S appealed the ruling. > > During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing > peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while > before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn?t alert 2S is > was clear to him that South had forgot the system. > > The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > > Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary Committee, > accusing N/S of cheating. > > What is your opinion about this case? > > I agree completely with TD and AC rulings here. In ACBL N/S would probably > have received an appeal without merit penalty for their appeal. It is quite > close to being frivolous IMO. E/W should be cautioned against making an > accusation of cheating against E/W without serious evidence to support their > case. > > Jack > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081210/2647b71e/attachment-0001.htm From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 10 18:31:56 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 13:31:56 -0400 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: On 12/6/08 12:25 PM, "Torsten ?strand" wrote: > South K > None vul K J 8 > A 9 8 6 5 4 > K 4 2 > A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 > 7 2 5 3 > K Q T 3 J 7 2 > A 8 6 Q 7 3 > Q 6 3 > A Q T 9 6 4 > ? > J T 9 5 > > West North East South > 2D > Pass 2S Pass 3H > Pass 4H Pass Pass > Pass > > 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, 2S > invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South?s 3H came after a > long hesitation. North?s raise to game closed the auction. > > TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to the fact > that 2[ was not alerted, South?s pause before 3H and North?s decision to > raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W?s questioning. After > the play TD was again called to the table asked for a ruling. > > It?s not clear from TD?s investigations what other options South has when > having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest choice. TD > considered that South?s failure to alert and the slow 3H-bid strongly suggests > raise with the North hand ? it?s possible that South had misunderstood the > 2S-bid. TD?s ruling was 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > N/S appealed the ruling. > > During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing > peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while > before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn?t alert 2S is > was clear to him that South had forgot the system. > > The AC upheld TD?s decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. > > Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary Committee, > accusing N/S of cheating. > > What is your opinion about this case? > > I agree completely with TD and AC rulings here. In ACBL N/S would probably > have received an appeal without merit penalty for their appeal. It is quite > close to being frivolous IMO. E/W should be cautioned against making an > accusation of cheating against E/W without serious evidence to support their > case. > > Jack > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081210/2647b71e/attachment-0002.htm From john at asimere.com Tue Dec 16 01:20:26 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 00:20:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: of course NS were cheating, but I'd only adjust, same as the TD did. About half the players in the world cheat; just live with it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Torsten ?strand To: blml Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2008 4:25 PM Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? South K None vul K J 8 A 9 8 6 5 4 K 4 2 A 9 8 2 J T 7 5 4 7 2 5 3 K Q T 3 J 7 2 A 8 6 Q 7 3 Q 6 3 A Q T 9 6 4 - J T 9 5 West North East South 2D Pass 2S Pass 3H Pass 4H Pass Pass Pass 2D showed either a weak-2 in one major or a strong NT, 22-24 HCP, 2S invitational if weak-2 in hearts (not alerted) and South's 3H came after a long hesitation. North's raise to game closed the auction. TD was summoned after the bidding; E/W wanted to draw attention to the fact that 2[ was not alerted, South's pause before 3H and North's decision to raise. Already at this point North was upset about E/W's questioning. After the play TD was again called to the table asked for a ruling. It's not clear from TD's investigations what other options South has when having a weak-2 in hearts; obviously 3H must be the weakest choice. TD considered that South's failure to alert and the slow 3H-bid strongly suggests raise with the North hand - it's possible that South had misunderstood the 2S-bid. TD's ruling was 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. N/S appealed the ruling. During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn't alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the system. The AC upheld TD's decision: 3H South making 11 tricks, N/S + 200. Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic's and Disciplinary Committee, accusing N/S of cheating. What is your opinion about this case? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20081216/c667a9a0/attachment.htm From AlLevy at aol.com Wed Dec 17 04:43:38 2008 From: AlLevy at aol.com (AlLevy at aol.com) Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:43:38 EST Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 Message-ID: Law 27 B. 1(a) is unchanged from the old Laws, with the exception of the last sentence. In the 1997 Laws, the last sentence reads "...see (b) below, while the new Law reads, see D below. In both versions, the Director was authorized to change the score if the insufficient bid conveyed information that damaged the non-offending side, In the 2008 version, it states..."he [the Director] should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred...4H in the example mentioned. Law 27B1(a) is clear that (1) "the auction continues without further rectification" and (2) the insufficient bid is UI. This is the correct approach to bridge. We can't allow an insufficient bid to go "unnoticed" when it is clearly (in the case mentioned, 2H/3H) UI. Law 27D should NOT be deleted. It is the part of Law 27 B 1(a) that makes the insufficient bid UI. I do agree that the problem is in the explanation that the Director gave. A full understanding of the Laws should lead to a full explanation at the table. Even under the old Law 27, the Director should have mentioned part (b) ... that the insufficient bid is UI. Following your conscience would have been rewarded. Al Levy In a message dated 12/16/2008 2:11:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, blml-request at amsterdamned.org writes: Message: 6 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:47:19 -0800 From: "Marvin L French" Subject: Re: [blml] Wonderful L27 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Message-ID: <18722B3F631D4D5590972BE4FA5361E8 at MARVLAPTOP> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Recently my partner opened 1H-P-1NT by me and LHO bid 2S, not noticed by partner, who bid 2H. The TD came, the 2H bid was not condoned, and my partner was told that if she bids 3H there is no further consequences. So she bid 3H. My hand had K9 of hearts and KQxx in clubs, and I had an ethical dilemma. Going by what the TD said I passed 3H, treating the 2H bid as AI. Had partner bid 3H immediately over 2S, however, I would have raised. If 3H had made on the nose, the opponents could have called the TD, who should probably change the contract to 4H-1 in accordance with L27D. Right? Wrong!..."the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred" would have been a 4H contract! There's something wrong about this. The insufficient bid should certainly be UI (extraneous information), and both pairs should be told that. At the very least, the last sentence of L27D should be deleted. Luckily for my conscience, 4H was cold. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com **************Make your life easier with all your friends, email, and favorite sites in one place. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081216/eb67c333/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 07:54:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:54:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <0F8C8D96ACAD4B2381B6BA16EF42DCB8@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marvin French: >Having attended many ACBLLC meetings, I formed the impression that >the members felt no need for outside assistance. I submitted >several suggestions over the years, but did not get the courtesy >of a reply. Richard Hills: One (possibly former) senior member of the ACBL had a peculiar idea about courtesy. In a 1997 ACBL Appeals Casebook, in which Marv had featured as a protagonist in one case, the senior ACBL member was outraged that Marv had "discourteously" discussed the case on blml without waiting for the casebook's verdict. The senior ACBL member obviously believed that the First Amendment to the American Constitution does not apply to a grass-roots ACBLer discussing an injustice (or even an incorrectly perceived injustice) on blml. Marvin French: >I once suggested to the late Ralph Cohen, then co-chair of the LC, >that he might benefit from lurking on BLML. He said he didn't want >to clutter up his in-box. Richard Hills: Why train a dog and bark yourself? No need to clutter up your inbox if a fidus Achates volunteers to sift for diamonds himself. Marvin French: >Adam Wildawsky, vice chairman, is a subscriber, lurking now I >guess, but Adam is always right so he needs no assistance. Richard Hills: Not always right. Adam's preferred interpretation of Law 12 was specifically rejected by the WBF Laws Committee in 2002, so Adam was wrong then. WBF LC Minutes, 27th August 2002, item 2: The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "for a non-offending side the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for an offending side, the most unfavourable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred". It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to reconsider that decision. Richard Hills: Of course, this and other pre-2007 WBF LC minutes are of doubtful continuing validity post-2007 Laws. So the Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission could resubmit his hobby-horse interpretation of Law 12 to his ACBL LC colleagues, who have consequently ruled that Adam is correct now. Marvin French: >Some of the WBFLC are also subscribers, to their credit. At the >WBFLC meeting in Lille, France, it was apparent from the minutes >that BLML discussions had prompted some of the interpretations, >probably thanks to Grattan. Unfortunately a few of the best have >been abandoned for no good reason. For instance, they declared the >"pro question" to be illegal, but the 2007 Laws say it is merely >"improper." Richard Hills: Any infraction of Law is illegal. An infraction of Law 20G1 is not "merely" improper, it is _additionally_ improper, an illegal action which is _worse_ than your standard illegal action. Since the only way Law 20G1 can be infracted is by intent, an infraction of that Law is worse -- improper -- than an unintentional but proper revoke. Marvin French: >I believe that one of the requirements for being an LC member >should be a subscription to BLML, with participation at least >occasionally. I guess that makes me a dreamer, like Robert. Richard Hills: I believe that one of the requirements for being a blmler should be occasionally remembering that what you write is not necessarily what others want to read. For example, I was sent a private email by a blmler, not Alain Gottcheiner nor Herman De Wael, which vigorously attacked my (failed) attempt at self-deprecating humour: >>Sickening irrelevant. Read no further. >> >>You are a___+_ and and OI&*)(*& and a POIUPOIU. >> >>You assert that can write anything you want, no matter how >>repulsive, just by claiming, with your typically false self- >>modesty, that your post is not in the top 10% of value? I wish >>you would put your value system to a major overhaul. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 08:00:43 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:00:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 References: Message-ID: <003901c96015$2f668f40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Law 27B1(a) is clear that (1) "the auction continues without further > rectification" and (2) the insufficient bid is UI. Nay. Law 27B1(a) explicitly states that L16D does not apply. Law 27D says nothing about UI too. It states that the TD should adjust to the situation without the insufficient bid, not to the situation with the insufficient bid but without the use of UI. So in Marvin's case it would mean that his partner would pass (too little for 3H) and they would end in 3H (probably after balancing double or 3H by Marvin). > This is the correct approach to bridge. This would be correct approach, I agree. But it isn't what is written. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 08:42:14 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:42:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com><003901c95fe7$f8c34280$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c96003$bf985650$3ec902f0$@com> Message-ID: <005f01c9601a$fa911c80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [Bystry] > > Probably for the same reason that with that hand: > > S AKxxx > H xxx > D Kx > C Kxx > > I would bid 4S in such auction: > > (1H)-1S-3H-3S > > but not in such auction > > (1H)-1S-3D(pre)-3S > > [DALB] > > You should bid 4S in neither auction: partner knew that he had a singleton > heart in the first when he bid only 3S, and he knew that you would know. You > are more likely to *make* 4S in the first auction than the second, but not > much more likely; a 3D pre-empt will not all that often be based on a suit > headed by the ace, after all. Partner knew he had a singleton, but he didn't know you had three small instead of Dxx or Kxx. He didn't know you had 13 prime PC and well laid Kings. If you play maximal doubles in this position (I use responsive), then passing may be right. Otherwise it is against the odds. In the second case it is not merely a problem of K of diamonds. It is a problem of three small hearts. Knowing that LHO has maximum two hearts, it is not hard to envisage first three tricks... > [Bystry] > > New Old Black Magic? > > [DALB] > > Of course. It goes by the name of "maximal double" or "transferable values" > these days, but it is exactly the same evil of which Kaplan spoke. Nowadays, > we overcall 1S on your example hand above and also on KJ10xxxx None QJx Axx, > and rely on cheating to handle the subsequent auction. Crede expertum - I > have seen them, child. What can I do to make you more comfortable, David (I'd prefer to avoid hugging)? Let us be a merry band of cheaters - in the end, if everybody cheats, it surely has to be something positive, hasn't it? And His Majesty Kaplan didn't want to provide us with more calls like 1,5S or 3,5S. So what is left for us, poor tributaries, if not to bid 1S or 3S and decide later if our remaining half of spade is enough to take another action (actually half of the heart would be more funny, that is something which my ex-girlfriend imposed on me when she saw me giving a coin to the guy who collected money to buy a bear, but refusing to give it to the busker who was playing out of tune around). To ease your journey through the thorny path of the omnipresent lack of ethics I may only say that although I'm a devoted cheat of the worst order, in this one specific case I would bid 4S whether my partner passed in 1 second, 5 seconds or 5 minutes (provided I wouldn't fall asleep), whether he "made a lamp" or his eyes were shining, whether he would kick my leg 7 times to show AKQ in hearts or 3 times to show xxx. "And there it begins - the star Burn free and bewildered" Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Dec 17 09:00:45 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 09:00:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007701c9601d$9138b2e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > > Yes, mandatory and very detailed four-page System Cards ( see: > http://www.abf.com.au/system/index.html ) are one reason the ABF > Alert Regulations work so well. > > But I would vote _life_ for pick-up partnerships, since spending > 15 minutes before the session filling out the System Cards vastly > reduces the number of -800 misunderstandings the pick-up > partnership would otherwise have. Maybe it would work. I won't say "yes" or "no" because I have no experience with filling such a card. But 15 minutes seems to be too little time. More like an hour, especially if you want to talk over the system thoroughly. But if this approach really solved many present problems, I would support it. The real difficulty is to change the habits of the Polish players. PPs could be helpful but our TDs are generally opposed to them. Issuing a new Policy and stating the year-long moratorium, after which the lack of SC would be penalized, seems to be a sane idea. For now disobeying our stupid regulations is the only possible choice. By the way, should I read [big snip] as an indication that my emails are, ekhm, delicately too long? No chance, as early as in the first class of the elementary school I got admonitions for extensive talking during the lesson :-) Regards Maciej From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Dec 17 10:21:32 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 04:21:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4948C49C.1020008@meadows.pair.com> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: <...> > So one cannot > criticise Edgar Kaplan for being insufficiently consultative on the > new 1975 Lawbook in 1974 because he did not use email (indeed, Edgar > did the best he could by publicly requesting Bridge World subscribers > to send in ideas). > It may come as a surprise to you, but I was actually more concerned with what the WBFLC might put in place in the future than what a now-deceased former WBFLC chairman did more than 30 years ago. IMHO, the only relevant facts are what the WBFLC did for the 2008 Law book, and how that could be improved. Anything else is just history. Brian. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 17 11:21:12 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:21:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> References: <000501c95fcd$4e1b0da0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000f01c95fd3$bf020a90$3d061fb0$@com> Message-ID: <4948D298.8060306@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [Bystry] > > >> You, South, hold: >> >> KJT7654 >> --- >> QJ2 >> A76 >> >> > [DALB] > > I am getting a bit sick of this sort of thing - it is no more than the New > Old Black Magic at work. If your hand is worth 4S over 4H, why was it not > worth 4S over 1H? > AG : because it's too strong defensively. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Dec 17 13:35:57 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:35:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <4948F22D.6010708@talktalk.net> [Torsten ?strand] During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the system. [Nigel] This thread is silly. South isn't a cheat. To cheat, you must [1] know the law, then [2] break it, [3] deliberately, [4] for personal gain,. No cheat would argue that it is OK to choose an action, *because* unauthorised information suggested it. Like most players, South seems to be ignorant of the law. Given the state of Bridge Rules, can we blame him? :( From john at asimere.com Wed Dec 17 16:47:40 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:47:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <4948F22D.6010708@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <98AD415CAEF545288CE29C9A200276DC@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Non alert, cheating? [Torsten ?strand] During the local AC-meeting it was stated by North that he saw nothing peculiar in raising to game, even though South had thought for quite a while before 3H. One of his argument was that since his partner didn?t alert 2S is was clear to him that South had forgot the system. [Nigel] This thread is silly. South isn't a cheat. To cheat, you must [1] know the law, then [2] break it, [3] deliberately, [4] for personal gain,. No cheat would argue that it is OK to choose an action, *because* unauthorised information suggested it. Like most players, South seems to be ignorant of the law. Given the state of Bridge Rules, can we blame him? :( Nigel, South is acting as a cheat would. That is sufficient. I adjust; I educate; I leave. John _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 17 13:30:21 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:30:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4948C49C.1020008@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: <000601c96066$96f9be10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:21 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > It may come as a surprise to you, but I was actually more concerned with what the WBFLC might put in place in the future than what a now-deceased former WBFLC chairman did more than 30 years ago. IMHO, the only relevant facts are what the WBFLC did for the 2008 Law book, and how that could be improved. Anything else is just history. > +=+ So Brian, let us consider recent history. The members of the WBF are the NBOs; it is to them, as the representatives of the players worldwide, that we are ultimately accountable. The component parts of the WBF are its eight geographic Zones. Before we commenced our review of the 1997 laws and the preparation of the 2007 Code, we e-mailed 116 NBOs and eight Zones, plus the Portland Club, with an invitation to provide us with their views on what they would wish to see changed (and not changed) in the 2007 Laws, together with such comments as they wished to add. . Effectively we received replies from the Portland Club, Zone 2, and about eighteen of the NBOs - largely European and South Pacific, but also Far East, Africa, Central America and Caribbean. As I recall without investigation, we missed out on replies from South America and from Asia and the Middle East. I was the privileged channel through whom the replies were distributed faithfully to the members of the Drafting Subcommittee ('DSC'). In areas where there was consensus we did the donkey work by exchange of emails. We also tackled more complex issues in this way, clarifying what difficulties of agreement there were to be settled at our annual face-to-face meetings. In November 2006 we opened up our provisional work to the eyes of the NBOs and Zones, asking for their reactions. More or less the same organizations responded as had responded several years previously. We reviewed all of these replies, made a number of changes to our previous draft (one or two of them quite significant, others matters of language - of which two or three were to assist translation). You are aware of adjustments that were subsequently made in a couple of the laws and the compelling reasons for these. The replies we received, at the beginning and later, came from a variety of sources. It depended upon, or reflected, the philosophy and practice of the organization from which each came. A few of them were presented to us by senior players, we also had input from one teacher of the game. However, most came from the laws committee or the CTD of the NBO. I am unfamiliar with the composition of the committees other than my own in England. Today our Laws and Ethics Committee is listed as follows (I have appended a personal view of what each offers the committee; an asterisk indicates an ex-officio member, the remainder are elected): Alphabetically: Mike Amos - Tournament Director Max Bavin* - Chief Tournament Director Sally Bugden* - Player, Chair of the EBU, reformist. David Burn, - +Player, iconoclast Jeremy Dhondy - +Player, in the chair Frances Hinden - genuine all-rounder, knowledgeable, forthright Neil Morley - Tournament Director Martin Pool - Player, Vice Chair of the Committee David Stevenson - Tournament Director, ....................................................................................................... + signifies regular participant internationally Our honorary Vice Presidents have no vote but are entitled to attend and speak. Two of them do so regularly: Gerard Faulkner - Player, lawyer Grattan Endicott - sage. ......................................................................................................... I hope this fills in a few of the blank spaces for you. All of our TDs are also players. Stevenson professionally. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From brian at meadows.pair.com Wed Dec 17 20:25:32 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 14:25:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c96066$96f9be10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4948C49C.1020008@meadows.pair.com> <000601c96066$96f9be10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4949522C.5040400@meadows.pair.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Yes, Grattan, you have stated regularly that your membership consists of the NBOs, yada, yada, yada. I was suggesting a mechanism whereby any bridge player who wanted to could contribute their two pennorth and, if there was any merit in it, have at least a fighting chance that it would be sent onwards and upwards. Now, let me make it crystal clear for you. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PLAYERS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THEIR NATIONAL L&E COMMITTEE. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE HONORARY VICE PRESIDENTS OF THEIR NBO. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO HOLD ELECTED POSITIONS IN THEIR NBO, OR THEIR ZONES. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PORTLAND CLUB I *AM* TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE, AS IN **ANYONE**, WHO HAS AN IDEA WHICH THEY FEEL WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE GAME OF BRIDGE. And yes, there would be a lot of guff to wade through. That's why I proposed the multi-tier approach to sorting any input. You seemed to need to describe the structure of the EBU in great detail. You may then wish to consider the way DWS performed his duties in connection with the last Orange Book. He posted a link to a draft of the OB on rec.games.bridge (I assume you don't need to be told what that is). He invited comments from anyone interested enough to comment. *NO* worries about who his "members" might be, not even a restriction to EBU (and WBU) players. No, I am not party to any knowledge as to how many of the comments he read, or whether he had someone else filtering them, or any other details. I DO know that I received replies, apparently from DWS, concerning the couple of suggestions which I sent in. Alternatively, you could count each and every one of the people you detailed below. OK, so that's how many people, out of an EBU membership of how many? Now, you carry on with your views about your "membership" (I'm sure Eric Landau will be along presently to describe the ACBL's extensive consultation process, as he has done on previous occasions). You can even pretend that there's an open channel of communication to the grass roots bridge players of all the individual NBOs if you like. Doesn't make it true, though. Brian. Grattan wrote: | | Grattan Endicott | To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" | Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 9:21 AM | Subject: Re: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] | It may come as a surprise to you, but I was actually more | concerned with what the WBFLC might put in place in the | future than what a now-deceased former WBFLC chairman | did more than 30 years ago. IMHO, the only relevant facts | are what the WBFLC did for the 2008 Law book, | and how that could be improved. Anything else is just history. | +=+ So Brian, let us consider recent history. The members of | the WBF are the NBOs; it is to them, as the representatives of | the players worldwide, that we are ultimately accountable. The | component parts of the WBF are its eight geographic Zones. | Before we commenced our review of the 1997 laws and the | preparation of the 2007 Code, we e-mailed 116 NBOs and eight | Zones, plus the Portland Club, with an invitation to provide us with | their views on what they would wish to see changed (and not | changed) in the 2007 Laws, together with such comments as they | wished to add. . Effectively we received replies from the Portland | Club, Zone 2, and about eighteen of the NBOs - largely European | and South Pacific, but also Far East, Africa, Central America and | Caribbean. As I recall without investigation, we missed out on | replies from South America and from Asia and the Middle East. | I was the privileged channel through whom the replies were | distributed faithfully to the members of the Drafting Subcommittee | ('DSC'). In areas where there was consensus we did the donkey | work by exchange of emails. We also tackled more complex issues | in this way, clarifying what difficulties of agreement there were to be | settled at our annual face-to-face meetings. In November 2006 we | opened up our provisional work to the eyes of the NBOs and Zones, | asking for their reactions. More or less the same organizations | responded as had responded several years previously. We reviewed | all of these replies, made a number of changes to our previous draft | (one or two of them quite significant, others matters of language - of | which two or three were to assist translation). You are aware of | adjustments that were subsequently made in a couple of the laws and | the compelling reasons for these. | The replies we received, at the beginning and later, came | from a variety of sources. It depended upon, or reflected, the | philosophy and practice of the organization from which each came. A | few of them were presented to us by senior players, we also had input | from one teacher of the game. However, most came from the laws | committee or the CTD of the NBO. I am unfamiliar with the composition | of the committees other than my own in England. Today our Laws and | Ethics Committee is listed as follows (I have appended a personal | view of what each offers the committee; an asterisk indicates an | ex-officio member, the remainder are elected): | Alphabetically: | Mike Amos - Tournament Director | Max Bavin* - Chief Tournament Director | Sally Bugden* - Player, Chair of the EBU, | reformist. | David Burn, - +Player, iconoclast | Jeremy Dhondy - +Player, in the chair | Frances Hinden - genuine all-rounder, knowledgeable, | forthright | Neil Morley - Tournament Director | Martin Pool - Player, Vice Chair of the Committee | David Stevenson - Tournament Director, | ....................................................................................................... | + signifies regular participant internationally | Our honorary Vice Presidents have no vote but are | entitled to attend and speak. Two of them do so | regularly: | Gerard Faulkner - Player, lawyer | Grattan Endicott - sage. | ......................................................................................................... | I hope this fills in a few of the blank spaces for you. | All of our TDs are also players. Stevenson professionally. | ~ Grattan ~ +=+ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | _______________________________________________ | blml mailing list | blml at amsterdamned.org | http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mandriva - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJSVIrgLujL0lynd0RAs22AJ41a3NOqgOpN7LEKMjW+NQL0Pgg2ACgrB/+ e5IBwYYisWu78x8Dv78jiAU= =TNhz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Dec 17 20:42:55 2008 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry Bennett) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:42:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4948C49C.1020008@meadows.pair.com> <000601c96066$96f9be10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002301c9607f$ac612310$2401a8c0@p41600> If there is any onion around, you'd do well to keep a sharp look out next week ! lnb (trainee god) > Grattan Endicott - sage. From adam at irvine.com Wed Dec 17 21:15:19 2008 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:15:19 -0800 Subject: [blml] Public input In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:54:15 +1100." Message-ID: <200812172011.MAA08246@mailhub.irvine.com> > Marvin French: > > >Having attended many ACBLLC meetings, I formed the impression that > >the members felt no need for outside assistance. I submitted > >several suggestions over the years, but did not get the courtesy > >of a reply. > > Richard Hills: > > One (possibly former) senior member of the ACBL had a peculiar idea > about courtesy. In a 1997 ACBL Appeals Casebook, in which Marv had > featured as a protagonist in one case, the senior ACBL member was > outraged that Marv had "discourteously" discussed the case on blml > without waiting for the casebook's verdict. The senior ACBL member > obviously believed that the First Amendment to the American > Constitution does not apply to a grass-roots ACBLer discussing an > injustice (or even an incorrectly perceived injustice) on blml. And do you think that the First Amendment does not apply to a senior ACBL member expressing his outrage about someone else's perceived discourtesy (or even an incorrectly perceived discourtesy)? I don't know what the facts are here, so I'm not making a judgment on whether the senior ACBL member was off his/her rocker or not. But it's a pet peeve of mine when people expand the meaning of the First Amendment so far beyond what it actually does. What it does do is protects us from being arrested or jailed, etc., for what we say. In some cases we're protected from other consequences (such as termination of employment, although I don't think it's an absolute right in those cases). But while we have the right to say what we will, the First Amendment does not confer on us the right to have our speech eagerly accepted, or to have any attention paid to it at all, or to be treated with respect, or to be taken seriously, or not to be criticized, or not to have others tell us that we "shouldn't have said that" (just because we have a legal right to say something doesn't mean that it's not wrong in other ways). I've seen some peoples' beliefs that the First Amendment means that we have the right to express our opinions and not be criticized for them---which of course is the *opposite* of the First Amendment since the right to criticize is just as protected by the First Amendment as the opinions those criticisms are directed at. Not that it matters much. We can certainly argue about what ethical or moral rules apply here---assuming there isn't any sort of unwritten protocol that made it wrong for Marv to comment the way he did, and assuming Marv didn't make some unwarranted assumptions about what the Casebook editors were going to say, then the senior ACBL member may have simply been having a temper tantrum and was perhaps wrong to spout about it. I simply don't know. But when discussing such things, could we please leave the First Amendment out of it? It doesn't apply. It's a legal right that prevents us from being imprisoned for what we say, but no one was threatening to imprison Marv so it doesn't apply. It's not a moral rule. OK, I'm done ranting. -- Adam From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Dec 17 21:32:29 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:32:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Non alert, cheating? In-Reply-To: <98AD415CAEF545288CE29C9A200276DC@JOHN> References: <010001c957bf$460e92a0$1a72464e@home4paplwv76s> <4948F22D.6010708@talktalk.net> <98AD415CAEF545288CE29C9A200276DC@JOHN> Message-ID: <494961DD.906@talktalk.net> [Nigel] This thread is silly. North isn't a cheat. To cheat, you must [1] know the law, then [2] break it, [3] deliberately, [4] for personal gain,. No cheat would argue that it is OK to choose an action, *because* unauthorised information suggested it. Like most players, North seems to be ignorant of the law. Given the state of Bridge Rules, can we blame him? :( [John MadDog Probst] Nigel, [North] is acting as a cheat would. That is sufficient. I adjust; I educate; I leave. [Torsten ?strand] Afterwards E/W has drawn the case to Ethic?s and Disciplinary Committee, accusing N/S of cheating {Nige2] John and I may be on the same page! For the first time? I agree that Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Hence the Director and Committee correctly ruled as John would. Arguably the committee should also keep the deposit/issue and AWMW. But North is not a cheat. The Ethics and Disciplinary Committee should throw out East-West's accusation. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Dec 17 22:50:14 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:50:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c96003$bf985650$3ec902f0$@com> Message-ID: Imps (Butler Pairs scored against a datum) Dlr: East Vul: North-South The complete deal 93 52 A7 QT85432 AQ 82 KQ643 AJT987 T654 K983 J9 K KJT7654 --- QJ2 A76 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- --- 1H 1S (1) 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S X (3) Pass Pass Pass (1) Many top players have switched to overcalling 3S on this hand, efficiently taking away East-West's bidding space, but South has an inefficient style and judgement. (2) If North had doubled, many top players have switched to playing the efficient responsive double, but the North-South inefficient agreement is that a hypothetical double by North would be inefficiently purely for penalties. (3) Efficiently determining that 5H would fail, and also efficiently determining that the AQ of spades were two trump tricks. (4) +790, double game swing. Did Stephen Covey write "The Seven Habits of Highly Efficient People"? No, he wrote "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", a small but significant difference of emphasis. David Burn: >It goes by the name of "maximal double" or "transferable >values" these days, but it is exactly the same evil of >which Kaplan spoke. Nowadays, we overcall 1S on your >example hand above and also on KJ10xxxx None QJx Axx, and >rely on cheating to handle the subsequent auction. Crede >expertum - I have seen them, child. Richard Hills: This South on this auction did not "rely on cheating" a.k.a. infracting the Law 16B demonstrably suggested rule, since North's initial Pass was neither veeery slooow nor vry quck. Rather, North passed in normal tempo. Of course, David's main point is correct. In the late 70s and early 80s a popular defence to three-level preempts in Australia was the Optional Double. Partner had the option of leaving the double in for penalties, or taking out into her favourite four-card suit. This Optional Double was a highly efficient convention, since partner invariably efficiently left the double in when +800 was the number, but invariably efficiently removed to the four-card suit for +140 when otherwise -670 would have been the number. Pure coincidence that a vry quck Optional Double was left in, but a veeery slooow Optional Double was removed. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 17 23:17:07 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 17:17:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: Having been here and on David Stevenson's forum, a forum seems better. It is easier to know the topic of the thread and the original problem, so discussions stay on track a little better, and informative messages aren't as easily lost. Roughly, the blml format encourages a reply directed only to the last message. Smaller points. You would lose the "in-the-face" nature of blml, with its 20 emails a day. But I think this would be more than compensated by not clogging mailboxes. That would encourage partial participation. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Dec 18 00:05:23 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:05:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <494985B3.3010703@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] Having been here and on David Stevenson's forum, a forum seems better. It is easier to know the topic of the thread and the original problem, so discussions stay on track a little better, and informative messages aren't as easily lost. [Nige1] I agree with Robert; but you probably need active *moderators* to reap the structural benefits. For example, they could confine discussions on each law to its own dedicated thread; This could reduce the number of disputes that recycle the same arguments, year on year. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 00:33:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:33:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007701c9601d$9138b2e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: [big snip] >For now disobeying our stupid regulations is the only possible choice. > >By the way, should I read [big snip] as an indication that my emails >are, ekhm, delicately too long? No chance, as early as in the first >class of the elementary school I got admonitions for extensive talking >during the lesson :-) Richard Hills: No, my use of [big snip] is a courtesy to other blmlers who might just have started reading the thread that there are some issues raised by Maciej that I am not responding to (in this particular case the issue of more comprehensive System Cards), so for the Full Monty experience of the Maciej arguments they need to refer to the original Maciej posting, on the Archives at: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/ Note: While newbies such as Maciej have found the Archives enlightening, as an old-as-the-Hills blmler I also find browsing the Archives relevant to current debates. For example: Grattan Endicott posting, 13th June 2007: > Definition of chutzpah: > > "A person who has murdered both parents > pleads for leniency from the judge on the > grounds of being an orphan." > +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not persevering with research of the wholesome parts for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie there. ~ G ~ +=+ Richard Hills: As for Maciej's other point, it is a moot and unresolved (except in the EBU) issue as to whether it is permissible to disobey an _illegal_ regulation. However, it is clearcut that one should obey a _legal_ but merely _stupid_ regulation. That is what is specifically stated in the subject of this thread, Law 80B2(f), and in the duty imposed on the players in Law 72B1: "A player must not infringe a law [Law 80B2(f) is a Law, hence legal regulations have the status of Law] intentionally, even if there is a prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 18 00:47:19 2008 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:47:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Frick" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] The future of BLML > Having been here and on David Stevenson's forum, a forum seems better. It > is easier to know the topic of the thread and the original problem, so > discussions stay on track a little better, and informative messages aren't > as easily lost. Roughly, the blml format encourages a reply directed only > to the last message. > > Smaller points. You would lose the "in-the-face" nature of blml, with its > 20 emails a day. But I think this would be more than compensated by not > clogging mailboxes. That would encourage partial participation. On the other side of the coin, blml would then become like all the other sites. It's way more robust here and after sifting much more valuable. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 02:11:13 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:11:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >On the other side of the coin, blml would then become like >all the other sites. It's way more robust here and after >sifting much more valuable. Richard Hills: Yes, a while back MadDog robustly suggested that a player could, during the auction or play, require the Director to provide helpful advice before a crucial decision by the TD reading out the imp table, since that was Law 78B. This valuably alerted the WBF Laws Committee to a new ambiguity in the Lawbook, between Law 78B and the "no aids to memory" Law 40C3(a). So the WBF LC sifted a response to MadDog into its October 2008 minutes. Nigel Guthrie: >>I agree with Robert; but you probably need active >>*moderators* to reap the structural benefits. Richard Hills: But what if blml had used an active moderator in the past, and the active moderator had decided that MadDog's use of the phrase "flying f**k" was inappropriate, so the active moderator had reaped structural benefits by excluding MadDog from the list? Then unstructured disbenefits would have included the WBF LC October 2008 minutes being less comprehensive. Note: MadDog's "flying f**k" obviously meant "flying filk", a reference to filk singing at science fiction conventions. One filk song found a synergy between H.P. Lovecraft's tales of eldritch horror and ABBA. See attached. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * * * Do you hear the pipes, Cthulhu? Lyrics ? 1999 by Terence Chua (to the tune of "Fernando" by ABBA) Lyrics posted with permission of the author Do you hear the pipes, Cthulhu? They were being played by shoggoths on the shores of Carcosa Can you hear our prayers, Cthulhu? Deep in sunken R'lyeh waiting for the rightness of a star? Where the Deep Ones worship Dagon, Mother Hydra in sea chambers built afar? Chorus: There was chanting in the air that night The stars were right, Cthulhu! You were dreaming of your destiny Beneath the sea, Cthulhu! Though the Elder Gods have cast you down Have no regret As the Al-Azif has prophesized, R'lyeh will rise, Cthulhu! We are waiting O Cthulhu Sacrificing virgins while the nightgaunts hover 'gainst the moon Seeking power O Cthulhu Drawing sigils in their blood and Elder Signs and other runes They were dying drenched in madness and the eldritch vapors of a thousand dooms (chorus) You are sleeping Great Cthulhu Never knowing the unspeakable things we do in your name But don't worry Great Cthulhu We will carry on destroying without sanity or shame Till the universe resounds with all the sounds of lost souls shrieking out in pain (chorus) As the Al-Azif has prophesized, R'lyeh will rise, Cthulhu! -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 18 03:12:42 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 03:12:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 80B2(f) (was Law 40) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001901c960b6$1c193c20$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > > No, my use of [big snip] is a courtesy to other blmlers who might just > have started reading the thread that there are some issues raised by > Maciej that I am not responding to (in this particular case the issue of > more comprehensive System Cards), so for the Full Monty experience of > the Maciej arguments they need to refer to the original Maciej posting, > on the Archives at: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/ Did my smiley escaped your attention. Anyway, thanks for the answer :-) > Grattan Endicott posting, 13th June 2007: [snip] > +=+ The sadness is that the whole is tainted by > the rottenness of a percentage of the ingredients. > Blml allows of an infinite variety of opinion. This > is good. But when a long-winded contributor makes > repetitive assertions as to the Laws of the game, not > as opinions of what is desirable but rather professing > an interpretation of Law at variance with the proper - > authorized - interpretation, the value and credibility of > the whole discussion becomes diminished, corrupted, > noisome. People turn aside from the stench, not > persevering with research of the wholesome parts > for what golden truths and pearls of wisdom may lie > there. > ~ G ~ +=+ I agree with Grattan. The problem with Herman is not that he has no right to make the proposals of what the laws could be in future. His ideas are sometimes IMO unwise or bad for the game, but sometimes valuable. E.g. I agree with him on the topic "played or not" from August 2007 (declarer confused says "trump" playing notrump) and "Qu...Ace" discussions. I find it very irritating when people, deciding what to play from dummy, say something like "sev..., no, no, wait, ...,Ja..., no, Kiiiiing" or when they name the card from dummy prematurely, not bothering to look what card their LHO actually played. Yes, formally I could call the TD and ask for the ruling of L74A2 or L74B1 breach, but that would be close to lawyering, would have the chance of success close to zero and besides, those opponents are not trying to irritate me intentionally and I don't think they deserve a PP. But forcing them to play the card they started to name is a very good solution, they would quickly learn to keep the mouth shut before they really decide what they intend to play. The difference between me and Herman is that I'm not trying to state myself above the Law. I strongly support Herman's ideas on the topic, but I know what is written in the laws and the cogent arguments of Herman's adversaries confirmed my opinion that his interpretation is plainly wrong. But then, I would stop the quarrel, admit they are right and continue in a different way - by stating the full, comprehensive review of the proposed change of the laws, presenting the advantages and disadvantages, impact they would have on the game and other laws, methods of appliance etc. Herman prefers to remain stubborn instead. Exactly the same goes for the infamous dWS. Instead of wasting the time and everybody's patience for 800-900 of 1000 emails arguing that the dWS is acceptable because CS is illegal, contrary to the overwhelming majority's opinion, and what's really important, opinions of the members of the bodies responsible for formulating the laws, he should make a good compilation of all his arguments, spread it to the people, gain a considerable support, appeal to his NBO to consider it and additionally hand it to the members of the WBFLC whom he knows personally. Clear, correct road - acknowledge and admit being wrong about the current laws, think thoroughly about the hypothetical change, gain support (and confirmation), apply to the appropriate authorities. Had Herman followed this road, he couldn't be of course sure to succeed. But he would remain to be viewed as a reasonable, knowledgeable and constructive person by the authorities. Instead they view him as a disruptor and nuisance, tired of his constant rantings and heresies. And that's a pity, because with his bent, knowledge and intellect he could go far towards improving the laws of bridge. Herman is first and the most important enemy of his cause. I saw a similar situation on our Polish equivalent of rec.games.bridge - pl.rec.gry.brydz. There is a trend in the last months to attack our NO and especially the TDs, initiated by the popular bridge magazine and some influencing players. I won't bore you with the details, the TDs were mainly attacked because they purpotedly earn too much and therefore the fees are too large and the tournament prizes too low. Young man, but already a good (mainly) computer TD, tried to write something on the prgb in the defence of the TDs. Apart from stating some cogent arguments, he foolishly wrote how much does he earn and opined that it is not so much. Unfortunately the quantum was exorbitant for the Polish conditions and all the discutants jumped on him. Yes, telling the people from the relatively poor country that you consider earning 5 times more than them, working only through 1-2 weekends and 4 weekdays, as "not too much" is an inanity to the n-th degree. When I decided to check the prgb after the long pause, I saw that topic having already about 50 posts. All of them were clearly resembling the dWS debates on BLML - "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong", young man unwisely trying to defend his silly statement and people attacking him. All his cogents arguments were left aside. So although I am basically a player, not a TD, but knowing that this young man was mostly right, I posted his cogent arguments (adding some more) myself, drawing the line away from the earlier debate. Afterwards there appeared more rational posts from other TDs and suddenly the discussion started to be constructive and meritorious. Of course getting rid of references to the unfortunate start was not easy, but nevertheless the people were finally able to get to know the arguments of the TD side. Herman's behavior is similar to that of the young man. But there is a difference - the young man thanked me after my posting, admitted he started the case poorly and from that moment tried to stay on the sidelines, leaving the main heat of the debate to his more polemic-experienced backers. Herman continues to be the frontman, despite the fact that e.g. Jerry Fusselman or Steve Wilner presented the arguments for the dWS ten times better than he. I won't become the dWS supporter ever because it is completely contrary to my ideas what is good for bridge. I would wish to see all the laws delaying the correction of MI erased. But there are certainly some who could be converted, the dWS has an integral logic and is consistent with some of the present MI/UI laws. If Herman really cares for achieving his goal, he should in my opinion immediately stop ranting about the present law, remain silent for the next (at least) 5 years, and return to the topic in a different manner afterwards. > Richard Hills: > > As for Maciej's other point, it is a moot and unresolved (except in the > EBU) issue as to whether it is permissible to disobey an _illegal_ > regulation. However, it is clearcut that one should obey a _legal_ but > merely _stupid_ regulation. That is what is specifically stated in > the subject of this thread, Law 80B2(f), and in the duty imposed on the > players in Law 72B1: > > "A player must not infringe a law [Law 80B2(f) is a Law, hence legal > regulations have the status of Law] intentionally, even if there is a > prescribed rectification he is willing to accept." I know about that. But: - one could dispute the legality of our Policy - without pre-Alerts, mandatory CCs, Alerts of doubles and above 3NT, safe possibility of asking questions, L40 is de facto broken - our Alert policy is written in the specific way - there are no "musts", "shoulds", "shalls" etc. Constructions like "one doesn't Alert" are used and the last point explicitly states than Alerting against the letter of the Policy may be a source of UI, no other sanctions. - our System Policy is self-contradictory and incomprehensible. The authors alone stated that they made a poor job and that what is really important is their interpretation (and spirit), not the letter. The same goes for the Alert Policy (by the way, I know that it would be Nigel's nightmare was he an inhabitant of Poland and Nigel would be a worst nightmare of our regulators). So de facto we don't break the Policy. I'd just want the *letter* to be precise, because e.g. I have a relatively easy access to the regulators, but not all the players. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 03:37:11 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:37:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4948C49C.1020008@meadows.pair.com> Message-ID: Brian Meadows: [snip] >Anything else is just history. Abba Eban (1915-2002), Israeli Foreign Minister 1966-1974: "History teaches us that men and nations (and WBF) behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives." Eban's description of the British Foreign Office (and WBF): "A hotbed of cold feet." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 18 03:41:09 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:41:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:47:19 -0500, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 10:17 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] The future of BLML > > >> Having been here and on David Stevenson's forum, a forum seems better. >> It >> is easier to know the topic of the thread and the original problem, so >> discussions stay on track a little better, and informative messages >> aren't >> as easily lost. Roughly, the blml format encourages a reply directed >> only >> to the last message. >> >> Smaller points. You would lose the "in-the-face" nature of blml, with >> its >> 20 emails a day. But I think this would be more than compensated by not >> clogging mailboxes. That would encourage partial participation. > > On the other side of the coin, blml would then become like all the other > sites. It's way more robust here and after sifting much more valuable. There is nothing like blml, AFAIK. The quality of people here is very good, and that fact that Grattan listens has a big effect. I don't know what "all the other sites" refers to, but David's forum is more for asking questions and getting them answered, not deep discussions ("which is what blml is for"). From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Thu Dec 18 04:25:12 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:25:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081218142249.01e1e800@mail.optusnet.com.au> > As always Richard is the most useful BLML correspondent and the most well read after D.Burn. Now I know why I don't bother reading science fiction, science fact is quite alarming enough for me. On which other forum can I find out so effortlessly, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >* * * > >Do you hear the pipes, Cthulhu? > >Lyrics ? 1999 by Terence Chua >(to the tune of "Fernando" by ABBA) >Lyrics posted with permission of the author > >Do you hear the pipes, Cthulhu? >They were being played by shoggoths on the shores of Carcosa >Can you hear our prayers, Cthulhu? >Deep in sunken R'lyeh waiting for the rightness of a star? >Where the Deep Ones worship Dagon, > Mother Hydra in sea chambers built afar? > >Chorus: >There was chanting in the air that night >The stars were right, Cthulhu! >You were dreaming of your destiny >Beneath the sea, Cthulhu! >Though the Elder Gods have cast you down >Have no regret >As the Al-Azif has prophesized, R'lyeh will rise, Cthulhu! > >We are waiting O Cthulhu >Sacrificing virgins while the nightgaunts hover 'gainst the moon >Seeking power O Cthulhu >Drawing sigils in their blood and Elder Signs and other runes >They were dying drenched in madness > and the eldritch vapors of a thousand dooms > >(chorus) > >You are sleeping Great Cthulhu >Never knowing the unspeakable things we do in your name >But don't worry Great Cthulhu >We will carry on destroying without sanity or shame >Till the universe resounds with all the sounds > of lost souls shrieking out in pain > >(chorus) > >As the Al-Azif has prophesized, R'lyeh will rise, Cthulhu! > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments >immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, >sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, >retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons >or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC >respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The >official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's >website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 18 04:52:45 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 22:52:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Public input [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c96066$96f9be10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4948C49C.1020008@meadows.pair.com> <000601c96066$96f9be10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Thanks Grattan for the information. There were significant differences in how the old L27 was being understood and applied. Three (from my memory) are listed below. With all of that extended discussion and cooperation and input during the creation of the law, apparently none of these differences were discovered. But they all came out during the public discussion of the applicaton of the law. So I would say the 2007 lawbook was pretty good, and I am thankful for everyone's efforts. I like the new revoke laws; I like L27. The question is if public input could have improved it (or the WBFLC yearly opinions). I think the evidence above is that it could help. Note that you could do exactly the same thing in 2018 and just add a public forum. ------------------ Apparently differences in the application of the old L27. 1. Does the director tell LHO if there are any legal nonbarring bids? 2. Does "incontrovertibly not conventional" referred to the bid as the player intended it or to any possible reconstruction of the auction? (E.g., If a player attempted to overcall a 2S opening with 2C natural, could that player change to 3C natural, given that unless the director asks about intended meaning, the player could have meant to open an artificial 2C). 3. Can a player fudge the meaning of a bid to make a nonbarring correction? Is it okay that partner knows this? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 07:17:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:17:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Roy Hattersley (1932- ), Deputy Leader of Her Majesty's Most Loyal Opposition 1983-1992: "Politicians are entitled to change their minds. But when they adjust their principles some explanation is necessary." Robert Frick, first thoughts: >>Having been here and on David Stevenson's forum, a forum seems >>better. Robert Frick, second thoughts: >David's forum is more for asking questions and getting them >answered, not deep discussions ("which is what blml is for"). Richard Hills: Nice to see a blmler modifying their initial stark position into a more nuanced position in response to cogent comments, which is also what blml is for. (In another current thread, in response to comments, Maciej Bystry has likewise modified his initial stark position on "stupid" regulations to a more nuanced position on "illegal" and/or "ambiguous" regulations.) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Thu Dec 18 07:14:54 2008 From: brian at meadows.pair.com (brian) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 01:14:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <4949EA5E.2050206@meadows.pair.com> Robert Frick wrote: > Having been here and on David Stevenson's forum, a forum seems better. It > is easier to know the topic of the thread and the original problem, so > discussions stay on track a little better, and informative messages aren't > as easily lost. Roughly, the blml format encourages a reply directed only > to the last message. > > Smaller points. You would lose the "in-the-face" nature of blml, with its > 20 emails a day. But I think this would be more than compensated by not > clogging mailboxes. That would encourage partial participation. > I don't understand why BLML should "clog mailboxes". Any decent mailer has the capacity for sub-folders and filtering. All my BLML mail goes into its own folder, and is totally separate from everything else. Web forums are a PITA (unless they also have RSS capabilities) because you have to go there to check whether there are new postings or not (yes, I know many of them will alert you when there's a reply to *your* posting). With the mailing list format, it takes just a glance at my mailer. Brian. From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 18 08:06:54 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 08:06:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003d01c960df$360a7bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hola, > Richard Hills: [snip] > (In another current thread, in response to comments, Maciej > Bystry has likewise modified his initial stark position on > "stupid" regulations to a more nuanced position on "illegal" > and/or "ambiguous" regulations.) Nay. The regulations arbitrarly prohibiting alerting *all* the calls of the same category are stupid, I didn't change my opinion. I just admitted that with the support of sensible disclosure regulations (ABF) or with support of ambigous letter interpreted later to be understood under the sensible spirit (PBU) this stupidity does not cause bridge to be unplayable. Illegality is hard to decide with all those delegations to the NBOs allowing them to do what they want. [10-12-2008, me] In Poland calls above 3NT and doubles shouldn't be alerted, although "prohibition" is too strong word. Our policy merely states that such alerts *could* be treated as a source of UI. It seems that regulators deliberately left a gap for common sense. [/me] Anyway, nice try. By the way, I was the user and the moderator of different fora and this is my first mailing list, but I would prefer it to remain in the current form. It's more comfy. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 18 10:21:07 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:21:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494A1603.9020002@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > > Richard Hills: > > This South on this auction did not "rely on cheating" a.k.a. > infracting the Law 16B demonstrably suggested rule, since > North's initial Pass was neither veeery slooow nor vry quck. > Rather, North passed in normal tempo. > > Of course, David's main point is correct. In the late 70s > and early 80s a popular defence to three-level preempts in > Australia was the Optional Double. Partner had the option > of leaving the double in for penalties, or taking out into > her favourite four-card suit. This Optional Double was a > highly efficient convention, since partner invariably > efficiently left the double in when +800 was the number, > but invariably efficiently removed to the four-card suit for > +140 when otherwise -670 would have been the number. > > Pure coincidence that a vry quck Optional Double was left > in, but a veeery slooow Optional Double was removed. > AG : as a routine user of optional doubles, e.g. on (a) Dutch 2-bids or (b) 2-level jump overcalls, I can ensure you that they work fairly well behind screens and with opponents practising "random tempi", which means that they can be used 100% honestly. The fact that some treatment can create ethcial problems proves that people, not treatments, are fallible. Since the optional double shows a NT type and sure stopper, its rate of efficiency in knowing when to leave it in or not is similar to that of a NT bid ; a bit higher, in fact, because in (b) you can bid a *second* suit.. The last bad deal I had using it was when I decided to double 2H on AKQxx - Kx - KJx - AKx, technically too weak in Hearts to do it. Partner left it in, and we missed a fair slam, scoring 1100 in compensation. But it was more than offset when a top player misplayed in slam at the other table. Notice that my double was indeed slow and that apparently didn't influence partner. Which reinforces my opinion that when optional doubles are unethically used, it's the players' fault, not the treatment's. Exactly as much as for any other treatment. Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Dec 18 11:16:40 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:16:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) Message-ID: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> >Nay. The regulations arbitrarly prohibiting >alerting *all* the calls of >the same category are stupid, I didn't change my opinion. >I just admitted that >with the support of sensible disclosure >regulations (ABF) or with support >of ambigous letter interpreted later to be understood under >the sensible spirit (PBU) this stupidity does not cause bridge to be >unplayable. "does not cause bridge to be unplayable"? The prohibition of alerting doubles has been in force in Poland for several years and not only did it not "cause bridge to be unplayable" but it greatly reduced the number of UI cases and the increased the enjoyment of the game. I can recall exactly one case when I was damaged because an unexpected meaning of a double was not alerted. Before this regulation was introduced, however, on a typical tournament I was (might have been) damaged two or three times per session. This is an order of magnitude difference. In a typical no-screens-tournament most pairs don't have any agreements about meanings of doubles in contested auctions. How many irregular partnerships (and a lot of regular ones) know the meaning of the double in sequences like (1H) - x - (1S) - x or (1D) 2C (2H) x or (1H) - x - (1S) - p (2S) - p - p - x What happens in real life is that people try to guess the meaning of the double based on their own hand. Usually both partners know that they have no agreement and usually the opponents know it, too. So the doubler's partner has to guess what is going on, there is no UI, and everything is kosher. Previously the typical scenerio after a double in contested auction was: the doubler's partner rises a few inches and raises his hand. He pulls it back. He then reaches for the ALERT card in the bidding box then either slowly pulls it out or leaves it in. Frequently he mumbles something like "I don't know if this should be alerted..." or, when asked, begins with "I take it to mean...". Of course he isn't sure what the double means, he knows it is undiscussed, but if he decides the double is for take-out he knows he'll have to alert it. But he needs time to think it over, the ALERT card is pulled back and forth from the bidding-box, finally after some hesitation is put on the table or not. The explanation given to the opponents is usually ambiguous ("I suppose not entirely for penalties...", "I am not sure but I suspect...") The doubler can sense immediately whether his partner treats his undiscussed double as take-out or "rather take-out" or "rather penalties" all based on how much time his partner took to alert (or fail to alert), the UI is all over the table. This was happening on, and on, and on, in every tournament, in every session, because doubles are one of the most frequently used calls and most pairs simply has no agreements about doubles (except for obvious situations). If it happened against you it was usually impossible to get redress because these cases were pretty tough to handle by TD - it is rarely obvious to tell specifically what this slow alerting/non-alerting act conveyed and how it might have affected his partner's subsequent action but to anyone who ever played bridge it is obvious that all this body language offered substantial help. For practical purposes, from a player's standpoint, the fact that alerting doubles is prohibited (when screens are not used) is a blessing. It eliminates vast amounts of cases of blatant coffehousing at almost no cost. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wyslij internetowa kartke z zyczeniami! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ff2 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 18 11:46:57 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:46:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) In-Reply-To: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <494A2A21.5090706@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > I can recall exactly one case when I was damaged > because an unexpected meaning of a double was > not alerted. Before this regulation was introduced, > however, on a typical tournament I was (might have > been) damaged two or three times per session. > This is an order of magnitude difference. > > AG : it seems like we have different experiences. The way to have one's cake and eat it, I said it before, is to require alerts of *truly* uncommon doubles, and disallow alert of ordinary doubles : penalty, takeout, values, action etc. 99% UI cases stem from confusion between those types, while TUDs will be known by both players (low UI risk). Our 'egoistic redoubles' ('I don't give a damn to your long suits, I'm going to play my own') create damage and/or complex TD calls nearly about every time they're used, especially as responses are usually made in short suits (Multi-fashion). How on Earth can you guess that in the sequence 2D X XX P (2D = Multi) 2S the 2S bid, even elerted, shows *Hearts*, and even if you guess you have to protect yourself and ask about 2S, and are told it shows 6 hearts and fewer than 3 spades, how can you guess that it's going to be passed more often than not ? Yet, I think ERD are a good convention, and I'm not ready to abandon them because they're incompatible with a silly rule. I've spent about 1 hour trying to explain an angry opposing team that it was obvious, in our system, that 1NT - X - XX - p -2S perforce shows a bare K or Q of spades and that we were (1) compelled not to alert the RD (2) allowed to use this information on the lead (underleading AJxxx of Spades against a suit contract). Best regards Alain From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Dec 18 12:06:27 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 18 Dec 2008 12:06:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) Message-ID: <20081218110627.2072F1E30ED@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Cibor Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > I can recall exactly one case when I was damaged > because an unexpected meaning of a double was > not alerted. Before this regulation was introduced, > however, on a typical tournament I was (might have > been) damaged two or three times per session. > This is an order of magnitude difference. > > AG : it seems like we have different experiences. >The way to have one's cake and eat it, I said it before, is to require >alerts of *truly* uncommon doubles, and disallow alert of ordinary >doubles : penalty, takeout, values, action etc. >99% UI cases stem from confusion between those types, while TUDs will be >known by both players (low UI risk). All TUDs should be pre-alerted, preferrably by being listed on the front section of the CC. Ain't got no CC? Then no TUDs, brother. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wyslij wirtualna kartke swiateczna! Klikinij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ff1 From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 18 12:35:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:35:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) In-Reply-To: <20081218110627.2072F1E30ED@f03.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20081218110627.2072F1E30ED@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <494A359C.6030506@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > Ain't got no CC? Then no TUDs, brother. > > AG : you seem to have too much faith in the ability of the average-plus player to understand a CC. And I don't think pre-alerting is enough : alerting should supplement it. The argument that 'they aren't compelled to remember everything you told them before the match' still holds IMOBO. Many players will know (by meta-agreements) how to react to a double of Landy that shows diamonds; whence pre-alerting isn't essential ; but they'll have to know it's 'special' at the moment it's made Apart from that, my argument remains : there is nothing wrong about alerting TUDs, because confusion is highly improbable. Best regards Alain PS : At first sight, I see about 25 special doubles and redoubles in our system, none of them a brown convention, hence all allowed. How many lines are available ? From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Dec 18 13:17:40 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:17:40 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) In-Reply-To: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <494A3F64.8020705@talktalk.net> [Konrad Ciborowski] [SNIP] In a typical no-screens-tournament most pairs don't have any agreements about meanings of doubles in contested auctions. How many irregular partnerships (and a lot of regular ones) know the meaning of the double in sequences like (1H) - x - (1S) - x or (1D) 2C (2H) x or (1H) - x - (1S) - p (2S) - p - p - x {Nige1] IMO (1H) - x - (1S) - x: Penalty (1D) 2C (2H) x: Takeout: SPADES usually without club support. (1H) - x - (1S) - p (2S) - p - p - x: Penalty [Konrad Ciborowski] What happens in real life is that people try to guess the meaning of the double based on their own hand. Usually both partners know that they have no agreement and usually the opponents know it, too. So the doubler's partner has to guess what is going on, there is no UI, and everything is kosher. Previously the typical scenerio after a double in contested auction was: the doubler's partner rises a few inches and raises his hand. He pulls it back. He then reaches for the ALERT card in the bidding box then either slowly pulls it out or leaves it in. Frequently he mumbles something like "I don't know if this should be alerted..." or, when asked, begins with "I take it to mean...". Of course he isn't sure what the double means, he knows it is undiscussed, but if he decides the double is for take-out he knows he'll have to alert it. But he needs time to think it over, the ALERT card is pulled back and forth from the bidding-box, finally after some hesitation is put on the table or not. The explanation given to the opponents is usually ambiguous ("I suppose not entirely for penalties...", "I am not sure but I suspect...") The doubler can sense immediately whether his partner treats his undiscussed double as take-out or "rather take-out" or "rather penalties" all based on how much time his partner took to alert (or fail to alert), the UI is all over the table. This was happening on, and on, and on, in every tournament, in every session, because doubles are one of the most frequently used calls and most pairs simply has no agreements about doubles (except for obvious situations). If it happened against you it was usually impossible to get redress because these cases were pretty tough to handle by TD - it is rarely obvious to tell specifically what this slow alerting/non-alerting act conveyed and how it might have affected his partner's subsequent action but to anyone who ever played bridge it is obvious that all this body language offered substantial help. For practical purposes, from a player's standpoint, the fact that alerting doubles is prohibited (when screens are not used) is a blessing. It eliminates vast amounts of cases of blatant coffehousing at almost no cost. [Nige1] Players are hazy about the meaning of doubles; but nowadays they're equally hazy about other common bids in competitive auctions, (for example 2N:natural? transfer? relay? unusual? scarmbling? Lebensohl?). I still think it's better to *announce* "penalty" and "takeout" doubles (so that other doubles are known to have peculiar meanings). But I agree that if you think that such information will be of more use to opponents than to you, then you should be allowed to *switch off* announcements and alerts. From karel at esatclear.ie Thu Dec 18 13:32:54 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:32:54 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Ok so simply put you are arguing that opener *could* have been thinking about a, b , c or d which while possible are unlikely versus the "obvious" reason e. And even though reason e quite clearly effects his choice of bid (and even some of the others), you let the combination of other unlikely reasons sway you sufficiently to allow a bid which *could* and *may well* be based on reason e? btw indeed all your examples do have 6 spades. Why ? 3S does not promise 6. From the horses mouth "it shows a 5th spade". I'm basing my conjectures and analysis on the info given, i'm not assuming some level of expertise which implies if 5 spades a better hand, if weaker 6 spades. You cant assume that. Infact given the auction and the agreement level, you cant really asuume anything. > That is not my way of playing bridge - bidding what feels well. I try to > analyze the deal, statistical layout of honours, counting the chances of > contract fulfillment etc. I'm not claiming that I take much time before > every call, to the contrary, I'm quite fast. But there are some positions in > which your decision will probably become final. In those positions it is > wise to think longer and make the right decision. The player in your case > was exactly in such position. Yes, he actually had a GF, but that doesn't > matter. If pass (obviously)/3H/3S/3NT are NF, they will most of the time > become final contracts. 4D may be raised to 5D but you have to judge the > chance of failing in 4D. +++ I have to disagree here. How can it not matter if a final NF bid goes into a tank. A player can think as long as they like so long as their hand warrants it. The 3S bid finally chosen is passable. It infact should end the auction unless opener has been lying or has some exceptional hand, some extra distribution, a 3rd spade, nice controls etc. He doesnt. He has exactly what you would expect. If he is thinking about passing or raising a red suit - this implies some tolerance for the red suit and a secondary fit in that red suit. It also strongly suggests a 6th spade (as with tolerance why risk a 5/1 spade fit). All of these factors make bidding on more favourable. 3NT the same logic applies. Whatever was in the hand to make him consider 3NT is surely going to improve the odds of 4S? > Sorry, I'm probably not a peer of the actual N, but if you polled me on any > occasion I would never say that the player would bid 3NT because he has some > points, weak club stopper and it looks like 7/8 tricks will be made. +++ Responders peers were polled who clearly arent in the same bracket as yourself. You need to come down to their level and not argue cases based on how you would do stuff. > "Every opportunity" is nonsense. Most of the time they have cogent reasons > to do that. Playing against bunnies they can stretch more, playing against > better players they will remain solid. Having 22-23HCP they will bid 3NT > provided that they have a good suit which will provide tricks. Otherwise > they will play a partscore. And so on. +++ Disagree. If you read the bridgeworld article(s) it is quite clear that the finals described were won by meckwell bidding alot of anti percentage 3NT and they made due to very fortunate circumstances. In one case the opps show an 8+ major and they bid 3NT not a stopper in sight (Jxx opposite xx) ... the suit is blocked AK doubleton on lead. Cogent resaons? This is simply the way they play. > Nothing (except showing relatively good suit which may help him to count > tricks). But 3S doesn't encourage 3NT, you are making a decision and that is a good reason to think about it. +++ How does 3S spades show a good suit? Again you are assuming responder would bid like you do. > Right. And this decision is not so easy as it may seem to you. If you have > 28HCP bidding 3NT is easy. If you have max 24 you must have appropriate > additional values, otherwise you will frequently score -200. +++ correct so whats the problem ? Bid it or dont. If you dont bid 3NT you dont have these values. *Pause* 3S on the other hand says well actually i do have something extra but I cant decide. Is "extra" enough pd? > > So a smooth 3S should indicate dont want to play in your red suits, I > > dont think we can make game opposite your narrowly defined hand and I > > dont think we can make 3NT. Seems perfectly logical ? > > "Smooth"? Meaning of the bid doesn't change. +++ of course it does. Dont be niave. smooth 3S means I believe 3S is the best description of my hand (ie) NF not enough for game. *PAUSE* 3S means "I bid 3S but maybe I should have bid more or something else" ... and whatever "more" or "whatever I was thinking about" can only be good for 4S > [Me] > > Why? Yes, if he was deciding between pass and 3H he wouldn't bid 3S. But if > he was deciding between: > > - 3S and 3NT > - 3S and pass > - 3S and 3H > - 3S and (3D or 3H) > > then 4S is counter-suggested. > > [/Me] +++ I do understand. I dont agree. I dont think a final 3S bid indicates an issue with strain especially at teams where going plus is far more important. In pairs totally different argument as 140 may well be sufficient reason to risk a safer lower scoring contract. Not so in teams. I repeat if responder is thinking about spades versus any of the above then he will not choose (should not choose) spades. There is no upside to doing so and involves substancial risk. > So what? The TD made a poor job. He forgot about "demonstrably suggested". > He absolutely should ask the players what the hesitation suggests for them. > That pass is a LA I know without any poll. +++ isnt that backwards ? A "normal" 3S bid suggests exactly what I've been arguing (ie) to play, nf, passable. Opposite this impression the majority of peers passed. A pause 3S indicates something else. Your argument is we dont know what it indicates (ie) shows the same hand as a "normal" 3S. Really ? oh and instead of looking for the obvious reason we try to suggest maybe the poor chap had a really delicate tough decision .... which he solved by bidding a "normal" 3S with a delicate pause ... which pd will ignore because pd knows how tough this silly auction makes further bidding ... and wont be influenced an iota ... to bid the erhh minority 4S bid. which is more likely ? Which reason will the 4S bidder play the pause for ? Will the pause create a positive hopeful expectation or a negative one? Are you actually going to let someone bid on when there is a reasonable possibility this was influenced by pds BIT ? Why are you making excuses and trying so hard to let the offenders off the hook? we only allow the bid when it is clearcut ... it isnt clearcut and there is a very reasonable alternative. Pass. K. From cibor at poczta.fm Thu Dec 18 14:11:15 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:11:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) Message-ID: <20081218131115.3F2721E30FB@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Cibor Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > Ain't got no CC? Then no TUDs, brother. > > AG : you seem to have too much faith in the ability of the average-plus player to understand a CC. And I don't think pre-alerting is enough : alerting should supplement it. The argument that 'they aren't compelled to remember everything you told them before the match' still holds IMOBO. Many players will know (by meta-agreements) how to react to a double of Landy that shows diamonds; whence pre-alerting isn't essential ; but they'll have to know it's 'special' at the moment it's made Apart from that, my argument remains : there is nothing wrong about alerting TUDs, because confusion is highly improbable. Best regards Alain PS : At first sight, I see about 25 special doubles and redoubles in our system, none of them a brown convention, hence all allowed. How many lines are available ? [KC] 1. Why are we talking redoubles? Redoubles are alertable, quite right IMO (they are very rare). 2. If you make it mandatory to alert TUDs it will only confuse people and we'll be back to square one - to those "I don't know if I should alert..." because many poeple won't be able to tell the whether between TUDs and non TUDs - for instance is a support double a truely unusual double or not? No, I definitely prefer if my opponents don't touch their ALERT cards at all rather than seeing them pulling hesitantly their alert cards and putting them back in, hemming and hawing over their bidding boxes. No - it is definitely better to tell people "DO NOT ALERT ALL DOUBLES" rather try to make them understand which double is "truely" unusual and which one is merely unusual. I admit that in might sometimes lead to damages when I run into a pair that has 25 sort of doubles in their system but for one such pair I face 1000 that simply don't know what their double mean. So it is the price that I am quit willing to play. To top it off pairs with 25 sorts of doubles are the ones that are likely to be faced only in serious competition and that's where screens are used so the problem disappears. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wyslij wirtualna kartke swiateczna! Klikinij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ff1 From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Dec 18 15:32:47 2008 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:32:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be> <012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> Tuus Gaining from misbid of course in not unethical. But where in the LAW South's action is denied. He simple may act so, because if there is no hard evidence between MI or misbid, it is MI. I accept South behaviour, and even thinking PP is foolish. Ps. Without screen pard explains against system, but by chance explains just bidders hand. Bidders is declearer. Should he correct pards explanation, and if, how? Juuso Leikola Bystry wrote: > Hi, > > >>> Trying to avoid gaining undeserved benefits from one's >>> forgetting one's system can hardly be called an infraction. >>> > > >> Alain's adjective >> "undeserved" is nowhere in the 2007 Lawbook >> > > AG : nope, but it is part of common life ethics, and therefore of > "active ethics". > > MB: Interesting. So you consider gains from misbids as unethical? Because > they mislead the opponents? But I think I saw your past emails in which you > strongly defended everybody's right to psyche. Psyche is very similar to > misbid, but it's intentional. So, following your reasoning, gains from > psyches are grossly unethical. > > Yes, interesting. > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20081218/727e9644/attachment-0001.htm From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Dec 18 15:36:54 2008 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:36:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] False signals Message-ID: <494A6006.5030905@jldata.fi> Tuus all Law 40?C11. 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. All players has some understandings of signals and what is priority order of them.It is very common, that they give some or all honestly in the very beginning of deal, and at the end never. When, if ever, repeated deviations (false signals)lead to implicit understandings. And if so, how players should give that information to opponents. What, if any, is part of normal bride knowledge. Best regards Juuso Leikola From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Dec 18 15:46:44 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:46:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) In-Reply-To: <20081218131115.3F2721E30FB@f03.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20081218131115.3F2721E30FB@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <494A6254.9000101@ulb.ac.be> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > > 1. Why are we talking redoubles? Redoubles are alertable, > AG : are you sure ? They aren't, in my country, anyway. > > I admit that in might sometimes lead to damages > when I run into a pair that has 25 sort of > doubles in their system but for one such pair > I face 1000 that simply don't know what > their double mean. So it is the price that > I am quit willing to play. > AG : and I'm confident that the first will alert at the right times, so I want them to alert. While you want the second not to alert. So, the solution might be : a pair has to warn the opponents, as pre-alert, to the presence of TUDs, and opponents would then have the option of switching to "please alert doubles and redoubles", in the same way as they're allowed to switch off al alerts. You would be free not to do it. Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 18 20:21:04 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:21:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <001701c96145$c610d780$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > >Nay. The regulations arbitrarly prohibiting > >alerting *all* the calls of > >the same category are stupid, I didn't change my opinion. > >I just admitted that > >with the support of sensible disclosure > >regulations (ABF) or with support > >of ambigous letter interpreted later to be understood under > >the sensible spirit (PBU) this stupidity does not cause bridge to be >unplayable. > > "does not cause bridge to be unplayable"? > The prohibition of alerting doubles has been in force > in Poland for several years and not only did it not > "cause bridge to be unplayable" but it greatly reduced > the number of UI cases and the increased > the enjoyment of the game. Oh, Konrad, I know you are vehemently opposed to any regulations which reduce the amount of MI at the cost of increasing the transmition of UI. I respect your opinion, but my views are completely contrary. You are writing "greatly reduced the number of UI cases" which is specious. Cases of UI from Alerts are easily diagnosable. You have a point only in one situation - when the Alert or explanation *confirms* that partner understood the call according to the player's intention. I recall your long example given on the turn of the year in support of the dWS, and other your examples are usually of the same kind. I wrote to David recently "Let us be a merry band of cheaters - in the end, if everybody cheats, it surely has to be something positive, hasn't it?". Of course it was bantering, but it contains a grain of truth. I share your opinion that bridge behind screens is "cleaner", but I strongly oppose your striving to converge the F2F bridge to the screen brand in as far as UI is concerned, but failing to provide the players with due disclosure. UI was/is/will be unavoidable. You may eliminate Alerts and explanations, but you won't eliminate slight hitches, face expressions, certainty of the hand etc. *That* is a real bonus of every experienced partnership. *That* is UI which damages you even more often than two or three times a session. But so what? The field is more or less leveled. Ethical players are mildly disadvantaged, but that is a price we have to pay - we are aware of the significance of UI and to be able look in the mirror next day we have to bend backwards not to use it. I don't recall any tournament in which the usage of the UI of this kind prevented me from winning. Only my own mistakes and sometimes bad luck have a real impact on the final score. And you are writing "increased the enjoyment of the game". That is something solely personal. If I am cornered into choosing between bridge in which everybody at the table more or less knows what is going on and what the opponents' calls mean, but UI sometimes helps to avoid the disasters, and bridge in which UI is reduced, more disasters happen, but the players wander in the dark and both sides are guessing - I knowingly and with full confidence choose the former. Our philosophical approach differs too much to allow us to be in agreeement. > I can recall exactly one case when I was damaged > because an unexpected meaning of a double was > not alerted. Before this regulation was introduced, > however, on a typical tournament I was (might have > been) damaged two or three times per session. > This is an order of magnitude difference. There is a difference between damaged and "damaged". In the first case there is no more bridge at the table and you have no chance to obtain redress. In second case you will sometimes be able to diagnose the usage of UI and get redress. Oh, provided that you are not thinking about the *hypothetical* disasters of your opponents were they not assured they are on the same plane. But such cases are no problem for me. That is a price for full disclosure I'm happily willing to pay. By the way, it results in normal scores and should satisfy "protect the field" acolytes, not that I am one of them. > In a typical no-screens-tournament most pairs don't > have any agreements about meanings of doubles > in contested auctions. How many irregular > partnerships (and a lot of regular ones) > know the meaning of the double > in sequences like > > (1H) - x - (1S) - x Majority. Ten years ago I would agree with you, not now. > or > > (1D) 2C (2H) x > > or I don't know. I doubt that many partnerships have explicit agreements regarding this sequence, but most have meta-agreements regarding similar sequences. If you want to banish Alerts and explanations in such sequences, the price to pay will be your ignorance of the meanings, which will make bridge unplayable. You won't know whether to raise to 3H (because double is responsive) or to pass (because double is penalty). If you want to banish Alerts, but not explanations, you are gaining in the situations in which your own hand clarifies the meaning of double, but you are at loss in the other situations because you are creating *your own UI* - partner knows that some your possible hands are excluded. And asking in most circumstances is de facto worse than alerting - the opponent gets to know the whole explanation, not only to know that his partner considers his double as alertable, your partner gets UI that you can't diagnose the meaning from your own hand. > (1H) - x - (1S) - p > (2S) - p - p - x That is complementary to the first one. Better players will know from the analogy, poor ones may wonder. But this kind of double will never be alertable. WTP? > What happens in real life is that people try to guess > the meaning of the double based on their own hand. > Usually both partners know that they have no agreement > and usually the opponents know it, too. So > the doubler's partner has to guess what is going > on, there is no UI, and everything is kosher. Everything is kosher and bridge is random. Thanks, that is not a game of my dream. Anyway, who said that you have to alert "undiscussed" doubles??? You are completely misunderstanding my view. I want *untypical* doubles to be alerted. That is "slightly" different. [snipped, correct description] > This was happening on, and on, and on, in every > tournament, in every session, because doubles > are one of the most frequently used calls and > most pairs simply has no agreements about > doubles (except for obvious situations). Konrad, there are many pairs who are playing bridge for 50 years and still "body language" is their modus operandi. I don't care, provided that they are not an expert pair. You know why? Because my expected value of score against them is 75% anyway. And they perfectly know which double is takeout and which is penalty from the manner of making it. No concealed cheating, just manifest quick doubles, doubles "breaking the table", uncertain doubles and so on. You are tilting at windmills. > If it happened against you it was usually > impossible to get redress because these cases > were pretty tough to handle by TD - it > is rarely obvious to tell specifically what > this slow alerting/non-alerting act > conveyed and how it might have affected > his partner's subsequent action > but to anyone who ever played bridge it is > obvious that all this body language > offered substantial help. Argumenting in circle. If it is hard for the TD and the opponents to decide how did the uncertainty affect the bidding, it is usually equally hard for the "infractors" to use the UI to gain anything. Go back to your own examples and tell me what help it is to the doubler that his partner is uncertain? If he alerts correctly - ok, if he is wrong we have a clear UI case. > For practical purposes, from a player's > standpoint, the fact that > alerting doubles is prohibited (when > screens are not used) is a blessing. > It eliminates vast amounts of cases of > blatant coffehousing at almost no cost. At the cost of the creation of new UI - this time restricting the opponents of the doublers. And that is the problem you are completely overlooking. Disclosure is the *responsibility* of the explainers, the *entitlement* of their opponents. What are you proposing is shifting the burden of UI restrictions to those who are unconditionally entitled by the laws to the disclosure, in order to force the hypothetically unethical explainers to have some bidding accidents. That is not a kind of bridge I want to play. Regards Bystry From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 18 20:33:21 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 20:33:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081218110627.2072F1E30ED@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <002b01c96147$7cb24540$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > All TUDs should be pre-alerted, preferrably by being listed > on the front section of the CC. > > Ain't got no CC? Then no TUDs, brother. Show me Polish regulations which force anyone to: - pre-alert (you know that in Poland there are no pre-alerts) - fill a SC if he wants to play TUDs (playing TUDs does not force the system to fall to Blue or Yellow category) In Australia there are sensible disclosure regulations - mandatory pre-alerts, mandatory detailed SCs. How many pairs in Poland have *any* SC at the table? They don't have, but they still play some untypical treatments. Our disclosure regulations are simply silly. Change them and I may be symphatetic to Alert Policy, for now allow the players to behave ethically and sensibly. You may be shocked, but I saw Balicki (this year in Slupsk) alerting his partner's (Olanski or Bubu, I don't remember) double with a comment "doubles are to be alerted? anyway, I don't care". Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 18 21:26:46 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:26:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be><004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl><001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Ok so simply put you are arguing that opener *could* have been > thinking about a, b , c or d which while possible are unlikely versus > the "obvious" reason e. No. Reason e is unlikely. Karel, I'm still waiting for an example of the hand which makes it hard to decide *between 3S and 4S*. You are writing n-th post dodging this issue. If in your opinion there are so many hands suitable, provide *one*. > btw indeed all your examples do have 6 spades. Why ? 3S does not > promise 6. From the horses mouth "it shows a 5th spade". I'm basing > my conjectures and analysis on the info given, i'm not assuming some > level of expertise which implies if 5 spades a better hand, if weaker > 6 spades. You cant assume that. Infact given the auction and the > agreement level, you cant really asuume anything. Bidding 3S with 5 is insane (ok, KQJTx may do). If you want to say that NS were complete beginners, why bother the list with your case? You won't find any peers here. And how do you expect us to comment on the AC decision if we lack many important facts? Look at Richard's presentations. He is trying to provide us with all that may be vital. You simply gave the cards, TD decision (*only* about LAs), AC decision (without any justification) and you want objective opinions? Sorry I turned sour on you, on the basis of the facts given by you I would let the result stand. > If he is thinking about passing or raising a red suit - this implies > some tolerance for the red suit and a secondary fit in that red suit. > It also strongly suggests a 6th spade (as with tolerance why risk a > 5/1 spade fit). All of these factors make bidding on more favourable. Yes, hesitation suggests tolerance or secondary fit in the reds. I would disallow 4D (and maybe some other calls) if S had a hand like 1-6-5-1. 6th spade is not suggested by the hesitation, it is suggested by 3S. > 3NT the same logic applies. Whatever was in the hand to make him > consider 3NT is surely going to improve the odds of 4S? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. This is an essence - 4S is very unilateral. 3NT, 4C - these are more flexible and could be disallowed. > +++ Responders peers were polled who clearly arent in the same > bracket as yourself. You need to come down to their level and not > argue cases based on how you would do stuff. They were polled about LAs. Not about "demonstrably suggested". > +++ Disagree. If you read the bridgeworld article(s) it is quite > clear that the finals described were won by meckwell bidding alot of > anti percentage 3NT and they made due to very fortunate circumstances. > In one case the opps show an 8+ major and they bid 3NT not a stopper > in sight (Jxx opposite xx) ... the suit is blocked AK doubleton on > lead. Cogent resaons? This is simply the way they play. So now try to look at BBO vugraphs - compare matches USA-Italy with USA-Ruritania and you will understand. > > [Me] > > > > Why? Yes, if he was deciding between pass and 3H he wouldn't bid 3S. But if > > he was deciding between: > > > > - 3S and 3NT > > - 3S and pass > > - 3S and 3H > > - 3S and (3D or 3H) > > > > then 4S is counter-suggested. > > > > [/Me] > > +++ I do understand. I dont agree. I dont think a final 3S bid > indicates an issue with strain especially at teams where going plus is > far more important. In pairs totally different argument as 140 may > well be sufficient reason to risk a safer lower scoring contract. Not > so in teams. I repeat if responder is thinking about spades versus > any of the above then he will not choose (should not choose) spades. > There is no upside to doing so and involves substancial risk. Moonshine. Playing spades you will take 4-6 spade tricks, playing reds you will take 0-6 spade tricks. But partner is stronger and *his* suits would be easier to establish - more entries. S: x H: AKxxx D: Axxx C: Axx S: QJT987 H: Jx D: xx C: Kxx How many tricks do you expect to take in hearts and in spades? Yes, for me this is a clear 3S, but you are arguing against. Now try to change the lower hand in different ways and see how the quality of the spade suit, placements of honours, exact distribution, change the relative prospects of 3H vs 3S. > +++ isnt that backwards ? A "normal" 3S bid suggests exactly what > I've been arguing (ie) to play, nf, passable. Opposite this > impression the majority of peers passed. A pause 3S indicates > something else. Your argument is we dont know what it indicates (ie) > shows the same hand as a "normal" 3S. No. My argument is: we don't know what it indicates => *the laws* (not everyone's whimsy) force us to allow *any* continuation, even small minority action Try to understand that your approach would put the partner of the hesitator in a lose-lose situation. Let the hesitation suggest pass in 50% of cases and 4S in 50% of cases. Now the player chooses one of the actions and it appears bad. The player obtains a poor score. Next time it appears correct. Karel, the TD, is called and says - You used your partner's hesitation to achieve a correct contract, I disallow it. The player obtains the same poor score. What are you proposing is a Rule of Coincidence, even worse than applied to psych fielding. You are under an illusion of seeing only those cases which result in a lucky choice of the partner of the hesitator. But there many of those in which nobody calls the Director, because there is no damage. Believe me, I'm much closer to the "if it hesitates, shoot it" than to "adjust only in clear, obvious cases". But in your case I simply cannot force myself to disallow 4S just because it was succesful. IMO the only reason for disallowance could be South's awareness of North's inability to remember the system correctly - it's quite probable that it is the real reason he chose 4S. But I'm not in a possesion of such facts, that's the job of the TD at the table. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 21:45:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:45:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> Message-ID: >Ps. Without screen pard explains against system, but by chance >explains just bidder's hand. Bidder is declarer. Should he correct >pard's explanation, and if, how? > >Juuso Leikola Hi Juuso, Welcome to blml. Yes, before the opening lead (Law 20F5(b)(ii)) declarer should correct dummy's misexplanation of system. The correction should be in accordance with the pre-existing mutual explicit and implicit partnership understandings, not in accordance with declarer's cards (Law 75C). Of course, if there is a pre-existing mutual implicit partnership understanding that declarer frequently (Law 40C1) misbids, then that also is disclosed. WBF Laws Committee, October 2008: 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 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 Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Dec 18 21:46:12 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 21:46:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be><012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Tuus > Gaining from misbid of course in not unethical. > But where in the LAW South's action is denied. > He simple may act so, because if there is no hard evidence between MI or > misbid, it is MI. > I accept South behaviour, and even thinking PP is foolish. The laws designate a correct procedure. You may agree with it or not, but you have to follow it. When you are doing something outside of the correct procedure, even not explicitly forbidden, you are taking a moral responsibilty for your deeds. I consciously use the gaps in Polish Alert Policy to help my opponents. But if it ever happens that my behavior results in any damage, I would voluntarily offer to redress this damage. The player from "overinformation" thread worked outside the correct procedure, he revealed his misbid which he is not obligated by the laws to do. As a result he mislead and damaged his opponents. If he felt "ethically" obliged not to gain from his misbid, he should "ethically" offer the result of one down to his opponents. > Ps. Without screen pard explains against system, but by chance explains > just bidders hand. Bidders is declearer. Should he correct pards > explanation, and if, how? Yes. He should correct partner's MI and tell what the system states. In most cases leaving that as it is won't result in any damage. But sometimes it may. That's why we have procedures established by the laws - to give to the players a clear, reasonable solution of dealing with the problems, not to force them to decide on their own every time. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Dec 18 21:54:38 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:54:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] When the rules distort the game Message-ID: <67AA6F57-9788-4546-8DDA-9E778A4C8D0C@starpower.net> When you bid a game on strength, and RHO sacrifices, you will hold one of four types of hands: (A) you want to defend, (B) you want to play at the five-level, but no higher, (C) you want to play the hand, bidding to the five-level, but inviting partner to go on to slam, (D) you are not sure whether you want to defend or bid on, and want partner to make the choice. With A you double. With D you make a forcing pass, and respect partner's choice. When I learned bridge in the 60s, it was normal to bid on with C. With B you passed, and if partner chose to double, you took it out (a "pass then pull" sequence); if partner chose to bid on, you were where you wanted to be all along, and so passed. This was not even considered a special agreement, but rather an instance of the general principle that pulling partner's penalty double always showed weakness. Today it is standard expert practice (at least among ACBL players) to reverse the meanings of the direct bid, which now shows B, and to use "pass then pull" to show C. This is a patently inferior treatment, because if, in reply to your forcing pass, partner bids on, you have been taken out of your "two-step" sequence and can no longer show C; you can only guess to pass or bid slam, without any help from partner. I have quizzed several experts about this change. They all agree that the older treatment is obviously superior, but they all play the newer one. They do this solely because of the possibility that, in reply to their forcing pass, partner may show some hesitation or reluctance in doubling. Playing the old two-step, which requires pulling partner's double with a weak hand, means pulling with the same hands on which a pull might be "demonstrably suggested" by partner's reluctance to double, leaving them with the score for defending the doubled save either after they break the two-step at the table or have it "done for them" by the TD/AC. "Pass then pull strong", the new way, lets them pull partner's reluctant doubles with strong hands that, absent the two-step treatment, would normally be passed, so they can easily convince the TD/AC that they are merely following their agreements, and stay out of trouble. This is the clearest case of seen of the vagaries of the rules distorting the game by incentivizing players to adopt acknowledgedly inferior bidding methods. Do others have similar examples? Is this a problem worth the effort of trying to solve? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Dec 18 21:58:14 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:58:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] calls/plays versus actions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: INTRODUCTION (spin-off from L20 versus L73C?) L16B1(a) begins, "After a players makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest A CALL OR PLAY...". So it seems, at first, that L16B can be interpreted as applying only to calls or plays rather than all actions (which presumably includes director calls, decisions after an irregularity, claims, and explanations). However, L16B3 refers to actions ("When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical altnerative as chosen an ACTION that could be have been suggested by such information...") and L75 also refers to acts ("South's responsibility is to ACT as though...") One seems forced to conclude that either "actions" sometimes refer only to calls and plays, or "calls and plays" should sometimes be interpreted as referring to all actions. NEW CONTENT I think there could be advantages to interpreting laws about calls and plays to be about actions. "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but only at his own turn to CALL, and explanation of the opponents' prior auction." (L20F1) "After the final pass and throughout the play period, either defender at his own turn to PLAY may request an explanation of the opposing auction" (L20F2) "...a player may consult his opponent's system card....during the auction and during the play but only at his turn to CALL OR PLAY." [L40B2c(iii)] However, it just seems so logical that I should be able to ask questions and consult my opponent's system card whenever it is my turn to act. Suppose the opps ask me what a bid means. The meaning of the bid depends on the meaning of the opponents' bid. What are players required to do? A defender has a major penalty card. Declarer has choices. Declarer can't ask about conventions or lead signals or anything before making this decision? Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Dec 18 21:59:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:59:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] False signals [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <494A6006.5030905@jldata.fi> Message-ID: WBF Code of Practice, page 8: False carding by defenders Always provided that a true disclosure is made of the agreed meanings and expectations of card plays by defenders, intermittent false carding by defenders is lawful. Declarer then relies at his own risk upon his reading of the fall of the cards. (See "Unauthorized Information".) WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "Unauthorized Information" [snip] A player is permitted to make and use judgements about the abilities and tendencies of opponents and about the inclinations ("style") of his partner in matters where the partner's decisions are spontaneous rather than habitual or systemic. A player's habitual practices form part of his method and his partner's awareness of them is legitimate information; but such method is subject to any regulations governing partnership agreements and to the requisite disclosure. Habit is to be identified when an occurrence is so frequent that it may be anticipated. Not to disclose knowledge of partner's habits and practices is a violation of Law 40 (and thus illegal) when the call [[[or defender's play]]] is made. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 18 22:39:22 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:39:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: Konrad Ciborowski: [big snip] >doubles are one of the most frequently used calls and >most pairs simply has no agreements about doubles >(except for obvious situations). [big snip] Richard Hills: Many years ago Aussie expert Nick Hughes published a session report of an expert Butler Pairs, a qualifying round to select the New South Wales Open Team (Sydney bridge experts are more numerous and higher quality than other Aussie experts, partly because Sydney is Australia's biggest city, and partly because of the continuing influence of the late world-class Sydney player, Tim Seres). The overwhelming trend revealed by Nick's Australian Bridge article was that even the creme-de-la-creme of Sydney experts had no idea about meta-rules for undiscussed doubles. Doubles intended as takeout were perceived as penalties (hello -670) and doubles intended as penalties were perceived as takeout (goodbye +800). So the ABF Regulating Authority, which lives in the real world (not in the fantasy word of every single partnership having discussed doubles as deeply as the Ali-Hills partnership has done - system notes emailed on request), has sensibly decided that the minor inconvenience of doubles being self-alerting (no MI, since Aussie players know doubles are self-alerting) is greatly outweighed by the avoidance of vast numbers of Law 16 infractions had doubles remained alertable Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 00:05:21 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:05:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Richard Hills: > So the ABF Regulating Authority, which lives in the > real world (not in the fantasy word of every single > partnership having discussed doubles as deeply as the > Ali-Hills partnership has done - system notes emailed > on request), has sensibly decided that the minor > inconvenience of doubles being self-alerting (no MI, > since Aussie players know doubles are self-alerting) > is greatly outweighed by the avoidance of vast numbers > of Law 16 infractions had doubles remained alertable Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the ABF forbids pre-alerts and forbids the usage of SCs. Would you still be of the opinion that the regulation forbidding alerting of doubles is sensible? Don't question the first two foundations, take them as given and the only option is the Alert Policy. If you maintain your opinion, how would you react to such player's story: "I didn't know what is the meaning of my opponent's double. I asked his partner because I had to know. Unfortunately I passed UI to my partner, he was restricted and we obtained a poor score. After the deal my opponents laughed and said that they love those regulations, they give them so many good scores. So, next time the similar situation appeared. This time I was smarter, I didn't ask about the double. Unfortunately the meaning I assumed wasn't right. We obtained a poor score. My opponents laughed and said... Well, you know what. Now I read L40 from the lawbook and I see that I'm unconditionally entitled to know the opponents agreements. Nowhere it is written that the price for obtaining this knowledge are the frequent poor scores. I felt helpless. All the TDs laughed at me and told me that I'm naive. I was sick of it all. I saw only two possible solutions - to quit playing bridge or to deliberately invent some untypical doubles with which I could harm my opponents and get even. I'm not that kind of person, so I'm now playing only online. Here I can obtain all the needed disclosure without laying myself open to poor scores." If you think that this story is fictious, you may be very surprised... Protecting the potential UI abusers from restricting their options, we impose UI restrictions on their innocent opponents. Is that reality? Am I still on Earth? I always thought that the best way to fight with the UI influence on the game is *education* and *rectification*. But I must have been dreaming. Maybe it is another modern kind of "equity"? Instead of burdening the explainers/alerters with the whole UI, we divide it to explainers/alerters and their opponents. In the end, the opponents should share our responsibility to remeber our system, shouldn't they? Libert?, ?galit?, fraternit?. Bullshit. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 01:33:17 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:33:17 +1100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <494A1603.9020002@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >The fact that some treatment can create ethical problems >proves that people, not treatments, are fallible. [big snip] "Guns do not kill people. People kill people." :-( Richard Hills: One of the few things that I admire about Australia's penultimate Prime Minister is that he was willing to take on his own grass-roots rural conservative supporters by legislating for restrictions in the availability of firearms. Likewise, the ACBL permits odd-even first discard as a legal convention, but prohibits odd-even signals when following suit. Why the ACBL differentiates between these two apparently similar conventions I leave as an exercise for the reader to answer (and no, Maciej, an answer of "the ACBL likes creating stupid rules" is inapplicable in this case :-). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 19 01:44:21 2008 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:44:21 +1300 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000001c96003$bf985650$3ec902f0$@com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560812181644p2f0510b2y2c4f95bdaba40c58@mail.gmail.com> 2008/12/18 : > Imps (Butler Pairs scored against a datum) > Dlr: East > Vul: North-South > > The complete deal > > 93 > 52 > A7 > QT85432 > AQ 82 > KQ643 AJT987 > T654 K983 > J9 K > KJT7654 > --- > QJ2 > A76 > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- --- 1H 1S (1) > 4H Pass(2) Pass 4S > X (3) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Many top players have switched to overcalling 3S on this > hand, efficiently taking away East-West's bidding space, but > South has an inefficient style and judgement. > > (2) If North had doubled, many top players have switched to > playing the efficient responsive double, but the North-South > inefficient agreement is that a hypothetical double by North > would be inefficiently purely for penalties. > > (3) Efficiently determining that 5H would fail, and also > efficiently determining that the AQ of spades were two trump > tricks. > > (4) +790, double game swing. Did Stephen Covey write "The > Seven Habits of Highly Efficient People"? No, he wrote "The > Seven Habits of Highly Effective People", a small but > significant difference of emphasis. > > David Burn: > >>It goes by the name of "maximal double" or "transferable >>values" these days, but it is exactly the same evil of >>which Kaplan spoke. Nowadays, we overcall 1S on your >>example hand above and also on KJ10xxxx None QJx Axx, and >>rely on cheating to handle the subsequent auction. Crede >>expertum - I have seen them, child. > > Richard Hills: > > This South on this auction did not "rely on cheating" a.k.a. > infracting the Law 16B demonstrably suggested rule, since > North's initial Pass was neither veeery slooow nor vry quck. > Rather, North passed in normal tempo. > > Of course, David's main point is correct. In the late 70s > and early 80s a popular defence to three-level preempts in > Australia was the Optional Double. Partner had the option > of leaving the double in for penalties, or taking out into > her favourite four-card suit. This Optional Double was a > highly efficient convention, since partner invariably > efficiently left the double in when +800 was the number, > but invariably efficiently removed to the four-card suit for > +140 when otherwise -670 would have been the number. > > Pure coincidence that a vry quck Optional Double was left > in, but a veeery slooow Optional Double was removed. > My partner recently caught someone in this trap - a but trap they set for themselves - unfortunately not when playing with me: I do know the hands or the bidding except that her partner at some point bid 3S and he opponent quickly doubled. She was about to raise to 4S when it dawned on her that for her adversaries a quick double was penalties. So she passed and her LHO also passed. In the play an overtrick was made. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 01:57:08 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:57:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c96145$c610d780$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy: "Space is big. Really big. You may think it's a long way to the chemist, but that's just peanuts compared to space." Maciej Bystry asserted, amongst many other things: [biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig snip] >I don't care, provided that they are not an expert pair. You >know why? Because my expected value of score against them is >75% anyway. [biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig snip] Richard Hills quibbles: Are there not more non-expert pairs than expert pairs? Is it not useful for regulations to remove a dangerous flintlock musket from the hands of one non-expert pair given that their non-expert opponents will never request Law 16 rectification when wounded by a use-of-UI musket ball? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 19 02:38:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:38:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] When the rules distort the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <67AA6F57-9788-4546-8DDA-9E778A4C8D0C@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >When you bid a game on strength, and RHO sacrifices, you will >hold one of four types of hands: [snip] Richard Hills: Begging the question, petitio principii. In this era of computer dealing (thus mathematically valid proportions of wild distributions, compared to good-old-days 4333s caused by hand dealing), our game bid on strength may be the sacrifice, and RHO's "points-schmoints" optimism may have led to a cold game for the LHO-RHO partnership. Israeli-American expert and bidding theorist Matthew Granovetter has a radical concept that a high-level pass is always natural and non-forcing (gasp!). Thus if Matthew has passed his RHO's high-level bid, Matthew _always_ leaves in partner's later high-level penalty double, since a hand with the shape and/or strength to remove the penalty double is necessarily different from a hand worth a non-forcing pass. (And yes, Matthew's "distorted" theory means that he never has an opponent request a Law 16 ruling in this situation.) The deceased cheat and world champion, Terence Reese, wrote: "It is easier to win three tricks than to win eleven tricks." One problem with the concept of high-level forcing passes, (whether undistorted old style or distorted new style) is that even more discussion is needed by the partnership than the amount they spend on doubles. For example, should not-vul or vul affect whether a pass is forcing? So embarrassing when partners differ on whether a pass is forcing and score +250. And even more embarrassing is when you remember that partner's pass is 100% forcing, ergo a choice between -790 and -800. See the January 2005 "100% of Nothing" thread: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2005-January/020270.html Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 02:34:14 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 02:34:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001101c96179$e6f4a6a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Maciej Bystry asserted, amongst many other things: > > [biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig snip] > > >I don't care, provided that they are not an expert pair. You > >know why? Because my expected value of score against them is > >75% anyway. > > [biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Are there not more non-expert pairs than expert pairs? Is it > not useful for regulations to remove a dangerous flintlock > musket from the hands of one non-expert pair given that their > non-expert opponents will never request Law 16 rectification > when wounded by a use-of-UI musket ball? No. The proper way is education. Harder than introducing silly regulations? Requires more efforts? Yes, but makes bridge a better game. And the non-expert pairs will break even against other non-expert pairs. *Both* have "a dangerous flintlock musket" in their hands. Richard, your contributions on this topic do not make any impression on me. You are avoiding the *real*, *hard* questions and concentrate yourself on side-issues. In this you resemble Grattan. I know that such behavior is easy. But it is even worse. I'm more and more symphatetic to Herman reading such contributions. He is a man with idea. This idea may be totally wrong or brilliant. But he believes in it honestly, he makes best arguments he can, he doesn't avoid the hardest of questions. His beliefs are coherent and consequent. You know what was disgusting for me in the dWS debates? Yes, Herman was stubborn and didn't want to admit that he's wrong about the present laws. But some good arguments were presented by him, Jerry, Steve. Anti-dWS brigade claimed that MI is harmful and UI is harmless, only usage of UI is harmful. David argumented that we should imagine partner wearing earplugs, that UI is virtually nonexistent for him etc. But Jerry presented 7 examples from the laws where prevention of UI didn't allow for the correction of MI. And nobody was able to respond why the dWS is so different. Why is it so vital to respond according to the system, if it results in serious UI. Now we are discussing about similar issue - whether prevention of UI flow between potential offenders should be more important than their opponents' right to obtain disclosure. Alerts are UI, yes, but shouldn't partner of the alerter be wearing the earplugs? Why isn't the same argument in the same situation equally important? Sorry, this is just hipocrisy. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Dec 19 02:42:52 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:42:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494AFC1C.9080704@talktalk.net> Konrad and Richard point out that, in a competitive auction, doubles occur frequently and are often misexplained. But other competitive conventional calls are often misexplained, too. If regulators impose disclosure rules in the latter case, then it seems reasonable that they should treat the former the same way. We all agree that completed system cards and pre-alerts help to disambiguate calls, without unauthorised information. But why do BLMLERs reject the suggestion that you should be allowed to *switch off* alerts and explanations if you feel that they may be of more use to opponents than to you? From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 03:26:57 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:26:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] When the rules distort the game [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000b01c96181$4436fe60$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Eric Landau asserted: > > >When you bid a game on strength, and RHO sacrifices, you will > >hold one of four types of hands: > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Begging the question, petitio principii. In this era of > computer dealing (thus mathematically valid proportions of > wild distributions, compared to good-old-days 4333s caused by > hand dealing), our game bid on strength may be the sacrifice, > and RHO's "points-schmoints" optimism may have led to a cold > game for the LHO-RHO partnership. And so what? They will write 590 instead of 420. Expected value of the results obtained using well-thought forcing passes is positive. > Israeli-American expert and bidding theorist Matthew > Granovetter has a radical concept that a high-level pass is > always natural and non-forcing (gasp!). Thus if Matthew has > passed his RHO's high-level bid, Matthew _always_ leaves in > partner's later high-level penalty double, since a hand with > the shape and/or strength to remove the penalty double is > necessarily different from a hand worth a non-forcing pass. So they much more often score +100, + 300, +500 avoiding rarer, but more profitable +1430, + 980. > (And yes, Matthew's "distorted" theory means that he never > has an opponent request a Law 16 ruling in this situation.) Moonshine. There are always borderline hands. And Granovetter's partnership has actually harder decisions to take: (this is a bit simplified, please avoid nitpicking) Playing forcing passes: - with bad hand you double - with mediocre hand you pass - with good hand you bid So in the cases of borderline decisions you may always pass, and slow forcing pass carries no UI. Playing non-forcing passes: - with bad hand you pass - with mediocre or penalty-oriented hand you double - with good hand you bid So now you have no middle-the-road call, because slow double will show a hand too strong for pass, but not enough penalty-oriented. > The deceased cheat and world champion, Terence Reese, wrote: > > "It is easier to win three tricks than to win eleven tricks." Jumping from the window on the 10th floor you have a 50% chance of surviving. Either you will kill yourself or not, n'est-ce pas? > One problem with the concept of high-level forcing passes, > (whether undistorted old style or distorted new style) is that > even more discussion is needed by the partnership than the > amount they spend on doubles. For example, should not-vul or > vul affect whether a pass is forcing? So embarrassing when > partners differ on whether a pass is forcing and score +250. That's true. Forcing passes should be agreed or used only in the obvious positions. > And even more embarrassing is when you remember that partner's > pass is 100% forcing, ergo a choice between -790 and -800. That is a common false argument. Such cases are very rare. If they are more frequent it only means that the pair agrees to play forcing passes in silly positions, as in: > See the January 2005 "100% of Nothing" thread: > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2005-January/020270.html Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 03:41:39 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 03:41:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <494AFC1C.9080704@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001301c96183$51e45ba0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > We all agree that completed system cards and pre-alerts help to > disambiguate calls, without unauthorised information. But why do BLMLERs > reject the suggestion that you should be allowed to *switch off* alerts > and explanations if you feel that they may be of more use to opponents > than to you? I don't reject it. In my opinion it should be allowable. But only that, not your proposed "Announce Protocol". I would agree with it only provided it was done on paper. That is in fact the best disclosure/UI solution, but very burdensome. Writing every time "natural, 4+" and similar won't make people happy. But I'd prefer it to nowadays chaos. There is an alternative which looks sensible - announce or explain in writing all the doubles and calls above 3NT. That could be accepted by the players (behind the screens you already have to explain on paper, at least in theory). You may add some other categories of frequent unusal calls like 2NT in competitive bidding. But don't expect any change, Nigel. I'm sure we'll see the arguments from the known sources that the poor bunnies could not be bothered with obtaining a piece of paper and a pencil (that could be pre-provided) and what's worse - with actually writing something, while we know that they shouldn't be bothered with checking whose turn it is to bid/play, with knowing the actual auction and following the suit. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 05:42:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:42:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: "Edward, the hero of the movie 'Twilight', describes himself as a vegetarian vampire. So he can only be killed with a steak through his heart." Maciej Bystry: [snip] >You are avoiding the *real*, *hard* questions and concentrate >yourself on side-issues. In this you resemble Grattan. I know >that such behaviour is easy. [snip] >Sorry, this is just hypocrisy. Law 40B2(a): The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a System Card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership's understandings, and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnership?s methods. 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). Maciej Bystry: >Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the ABF forbids >pre-alerts and forbids the usage of SCs. Would you still be >of the opinion that the regulation forbidding alerting of >doubles is sensible? [snip] Richard Hills: So is a three-legged stool with two legs removed sensible? Earlier in this or a parallel thread, it was mentioned that a particularly super-scientific partnership used 25 different artificial doubles. If pre-Alerts and Systems Cards were prohibited, then any regulation requiring Alerts of doubles would be automatically silly unless and until the Regulating Authority also decided to restore two legs of the one-legged stool by prohibiting the use of 24 of the 25 artificial doubles (a.k.a. banning the use of flintlock muskets), leaving only two Law 40B2(a) legal doubles: (a) one artificial double, the takeout double (Alertable), and (b) one natural double, the penalty double (non-Alertable). Of course, ask a silly question (with a silly premise based on what the silly Polish Regulating Authority sillily does with its Law 40B2(a) powers -- almost unregulated artificial calls sillily combined with highly limited disclosure), get a silly answer. Maciej Bystry relates true story: "I didn't know what is the meaning of my opponent's double. I asked his partner because I had to know. Unfortunately I passed UI to my partner, he was restricted and we obtained a poor score. After the deal my opponents laughed and said that they love those regulations, they give them so many good scores. So, next time the similar situation appeared. This time I was smarter, I didn't ask about the double. Unfortunately the meaning I assumed wasn't right. We obtained a poor score. My opponents laughed and said..." Richard Hills: Without hypocrisy I note that Grattan and other members of the WBF Laws Committee grappled with this problem a few years ago without success, coming to the eventual conclusion that the only way through the paradox was via a Law change. So... Ta-dah!!! 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 Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 19 06:13:15 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 05:13:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <494AFC1C.9080704@talktalk.net> <001301c96183$51e45ba0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <003401c96198$824a9920$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:41 AM Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > There is an alternative which looks sensible - announce or explain in > writing all the doubles and calls above 3NT. That could be accepted by the > players (behind the screens you already have to explain on paper, at least > in theory). You may add some other categories of frequent unusal calls > like > 2NT in competitive bidding. > > But don't expect any change, Nigel. I'm sure we'll see the arguments from > the known sources that the poor bunnies could not be bothered with > obtaining > a piece of paper and a pencil (that could be pre-provided) and what's > worse - with actually writing something, while we know that they shouldn't > be bothered with checking whose turn it is to bid/play, with knowing the > actual auction and following the suit. > +=+ I am not sure who the 'known sources' might be on this subject. The Drafting Subcommittee considered it was an area appropriate for Regulating Authority option. See Law 20F1. The option is drawn quite widely, giving RAs considerable scope. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 06:37:23 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 06:37:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000b01c9619b$de705a20$15844c59@chello.pl> This time much better, I knew that the trick will work ;-) > Maciej Bystry: > > >Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the ABF forbids > >pre-alerts and forbids the usage of SCs. Would you still be > >of the opinion that the regulation forbidding alerting of > >doubles is sensible? > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > So is a three-legged stool with two legs removed sensible? > > Earlier in this or a parallel thread, it was mentioned that a > particularly super-scientific partnership used 25 different > artificial doubles. > > If pre-Alerts and Systems Cards were prohibited, then any > regulation requiring Alerts of doubles would be automatically > silly unless and until the Regulating Authority also decided > to restore two legs of the one-legged stool by prohibiting > the use of 24 of the 25 artificial doubles (a.k.a. banning > the use of flintlock muskets), leaving only two Law 40B2(a) > legal doubles: > > (a) one artificial double, the takeout double (Alertable), > > and > > (b) one natural double, the penalty double (non-Alertable). > > Of course, ask a silly question (with a silly premise based > on what the silly Polish Regulating Authority sillily does > with its Law 40B2(a) powers -- almost unregulated artificial > calls sillily combined with highly limited disclosure), get a > silly answer. The question wasn't silly. You were all the time surprised that I chose to disobey our regulations, you were delicately trying to tease out of me whether I feel bad about it or not. I fully understand that for someone unaccustomed to silly regulations the choices of players operating under them may seem strange. So I just tried to get you to understand how is it like. I hope I succeed. Now to the ABF, the concept of self-alertability may be a partial solution to some problems, provided it is really applied. So asking about the doubles is not UI-free, but if the TD judges that the question was essential to the choice of the player he should allow for more leeway in the partner's decisions. Only blatant usage UI should be adjusted. That way the whole system seems to be workable. > Maciej Bystry relates true story: > > "I didn't know what is the meaning of my opponent's double. I > asked his partner because I had to know. Unfortunately I > passed UI to my partner, he was restricted and we obtained a > poor score. After the deal my opponents laughed and said that > they love those regulations, they give them so many good > scores. So, next time the similar situation appeared. This > time I was smarter, I didn't ask about the double. > Unfortunately the meaning I assumed wasn't right. We obtained > a poor score. My opponents laughed and said..." > > Richard Hills: > > Without hypocrisy I note that Grattan and other members of > the WBF Laws Committee grappled with this problem a few years > ago without success, coming to the eventual conclusion that > the only way through the paradox was via a Law change. So... > > Ta-dah!!! > > 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." Ehm, what does it have in common with the story? This law is about redress for incomplete explanations. But in the story there was a complete explanation (first time) and no explanation (second time). There couldn't be, because there was no question. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 06:52:50 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:52:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003401c96198$824a9920$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ I am not sure who the 'known sources' might be on this subject. The Drafting Subcommittee considered it was an area appropriate for Regulating Authority option. See Law 20F1. The option is drawn quite widely, giving RAs considerable scope. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 20F1: "...and the Regulating Authority may establish regulations for written explanations." Law 40B2(a): "...or other methods of disclosure of a partnership's methods..." In one of his more sensible suggestions about the Laws, Jeff Rubens proposed the introduction of a laminated card with a grid of boxes containing common explanations such as "Transfer", "Invitational" and "One Round Force". An opponent would point to the "?" box on her laminated card, and the player would point to the appropriate box in response. Even if UI was still transmitted by reading partner's finger signals, at least some of the reasons for a Law 16C1 (e.g. overhearing remarks at another table) ruling would be eliminated. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 07:28:18 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:28:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the futureofBLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <494AFC1C.9080704@talktalk.net><001301c96183$51e45ba0$15844c59@chello.pl> <003401c96198$824a9920$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001b01c961a2$fba105c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "We desire truth and find within > ourselves only uncertainty." > [Pascal] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bystry" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 2:41 AM > Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > There is an alternative which looks sensible - announce or explain in > > writing all the doubles and calls above 3NT. That could be accepted by the > > players (behind the screens you already have to explain on paper, at least > > in theory). You may add some other categories of frequent unusal calls > > like > > 2NT in competitive bidding. > > > > But don't expect any change, Nigel. I'm sure we'll see the arguments from > > the known sources that the poor bunnies could not be bothered with > > obtaining > > a piece of paper and a pencil (that could be pre-provided) and what's > > worse - with actually writing something, while we know that they shouldn't > > be bothered with checking whose turn it is to bid/play, with knowing the > > actual auction and following the suit. > > > +=+ I am not sure who the 'known sources' might be on this subject. The > Drafting Subcommittee considered it was an area appropriate for Regulating > Authority option. See Law 20F1. The option is drawn quite widely, giving > RAs considerable scope. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I kindly thank you for the information. I know that the RAs should regulate the means of the disclosure. My statement was a low-class irony. By "known sources" I more or less meant "equity" supporters. I apologize for a misunderstanding. Don't be afraid, I don't blame you for our poor Polish regulations ;-) Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 07:36:26 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:36:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c9619b$de705a20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Law 40B6(b): "The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an explanation is crucial for opponent's choice of action and opponent is thereby damaged." Maciej Bystry: >Ehm, what does it have in common with the story? This law is >about redress for incomplete explanations. But in the story >there was a complete explanation (first time) Richard Hills: Then a Law 16 adjustment against the questioner's side, since the asking of the question was deemed to provide UI to pard, and then pard selected a winning but demonstrably suggested logical alternative. Maciej Bystry: >and no explanation (second time). Richard Hills: No explanation because of an expectation that the double had a normal meaning, and because of an expectation that a probably useless question would place Law 16 shackles on partner. EBU Orange Book, clause 3A3: "It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side's interests at risk (eg by transmitting unauthorised information or waking the opposition up), failure to do so may prejudice the redress to which they would otherwise be entitled." Richard Hills: So in the second scenario posited by Maciej there could be transmission of UI to partner, which therefore would have put the side's interest at risk. On the other hand, in a hypothetical third scenario where the questioner knew she held all of her partnership's values in her own hand, a question could be asked, since although the question would transmit UI to her partner, he could not use the UI in the auction or defence due to himself holding a yarborough. Maciej Bystry: >There couldn't be, because there was no question. Richard Hills: And where does the word "question" appear in Law 40B6(b)? If the opponents score a top because of "crucial" decision caused by a concealed partnership understanding for which there was no reasonable way of unconcealing, Law 40B6(b) still applies. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 19 08:17:45 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:17:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081218110627.2072F1E30ED@f03.poczta.interia.pl> <002b01c96147$7cb24540$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <006601c961a9$e432c6b0$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2008 8:33 PM Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) > Hi, > >> Konrad Ciborowski a ?crit : > >> All TUDs should be pre-alerted, preferrably by being listed >> on the front section of the CC. >> >> Ain't got no CC? Then no TUDs, brother. > > Show me Polish regulations which force anyone to: > > - pre-alert (you know that in Poland there are no pre-alerts) > - fill a SC if he wants to play TUDs (playing TUDs does not force the > system > to fall to Blue or Yellow category) > I'm saying how it _should_ work, not how it does. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wyslij wirtualna kartke swiateczna! Klikinij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ff1 From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 08:18:17 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:18:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003101c961a9$f6de4960$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Maciej Bystry: > > >Ehm, what does it have in common with the story? This law is > >about redress for incomplete explanations. But in the story > >there was a complete explanation (first time) > > Richard Hills: > > Then a Law 16 adjustment against the questioner's side, since > the asking of the question was deemed to provide UI to pard, > and then pard selected a winning but demonstrably suggested > logical alternative. Yep. > Maciej Bystry: > > >and no explanation (second time). > > Richard Hills: > > No explanation because of an expectation that the double had > a normal meaning, and because of an expectation that a > probably useless question would place Law 16 shackles on > partner. Yep. > Richard Hills: > > So in the second scenario posited by Maciej there could be > transmission of UI to partner, which therefore would have > put the side's interest at risk. Yep. > On the other hand, in a hypothetical third scenario where > the questioner knew she held all of her partnership's > values in her own hand, a question could be asked, since > although the question would transmit UI to her partner, he > could not use the UI in the auction or defence due to > himself holding a yarborough. That's possible hypothetically, although rare in competitive auctions. > Maciej Bystry: > > >There couldn't be, because there was no question. > > Richard Hills: > > And where does the word "question" appear in Law 40B6(b)? > > If the opponents score a top because of "crucial" decision > caused by a concealed partnership understanding for which > there was no reasonable way of unconcealing, Law 40B6(b) > still applies. Fascinating! I like this interpretation. I just realized that I have many CPUs. You see, didn't I tell you I'm a cheat of the worst order? And to think that in all those cases when the opponents didn't ask about my agreements I naively thought I'm a honest player. Shit happens. Seriously, it would be fine to give redress for such cases, but I'm afraid it would result in *no* questions, so in a deluge of adjustments. Everybody would say "I didn't ask because I didn't want to create UI". No bonus, but nice try. Regards Maciej From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 19 08:45:52 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:45:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl> <001701c96145$c610d780$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <008201c961ad$d20af620$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" > Argumenting in circle. If it is hard for the TD and the opponents to > decide > how did the uncertainty affect the bidding, it is usually equally hard for > the "infractors" to use the UI to gain anything. Nope. Because it is very, very difficult to prove to the TD that the UI existed in the first place because the opponents will deny it. If you tell the TD "this chap's hand was shaking a little before he pulled the ALERT card" he will how no gounds for acting even if you know like hell that there is ton of non-verbal communication going on. If you want a proof that you just put people behind screens. Suddenly the number of -670s and the likes goes up. Why do you think this is the case? Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tysiace zabawnych wierszyk?w.Dodaj swoj Sprawdz >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1fcd From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 08:42:34 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:42:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081218110627.2072F1E30ED@f03.poczta.interia.pl><002b01c96147$7cb24540$15844c59@chello.pl> <006601c961a9$e432c6b0$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <001101c961ad$5b938200$15844c59@chello.pl> > I'm saying how it _should_ work, not how it does. On this point we are surely much closer than in the MI/UI dilemma. With sensible disclosure regulations I could easily live with non-alertablility of doubles. > Konrad Ciborowski > Krak?w, Poland Regards Bystru From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 19 08:49:30 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 07:49:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c961ae$553fad10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, December 19, 2008 6:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>and no explanation (second time). > > Richard Hills: > > No explanation because of an expectation that the double had > a normal meaning, and because of an expectation that a > probably useless question would place Law 16 shackles on > partner. > >>There couldn't be, because there was no question. > > Richard Hills: > > And where does the word "question" appear in Law 40B6(b)? > > If the opponents score a top because of "crucial" decision > caused by a concealed partnership understanding for which > there was no reasonable way of unconcealing, Law 40B6(b) > still applies. > +=+ Having been inattentive to this topic I have not followed what is going on in the case. However, my suspicions are aroused by Richard's last assertion. The law [Law 40B6(b)] reads: "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." My question. Was there an explanation in which the information should/could have been given and was not? Supplementary question: If 'no' was there a violation of the disclosure regulations (see Law 40F4)? ~Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 19 08:51:30 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:51:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <009101c961ae$9aeb5e90$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" If you maintain your opinion, how would you react to such player's story: [SNIP] The scale, Maciej, the scale. The frequency. You might be damaged only once in a while by the problems with unalerted doubles. When artificial doubles had to be altered that you were frequently robbed blind by coffeehousing and "I am not sure but I take the double to mean..." body language. >Protecting the potential UI abusers from restricting their options, we >impose UI restrictions on their innocent opponents. Is that reality? Yes, it is. You, in turn, prefer to let people use UI at virtually no cost - whenever they don't know what the double means. I'm talking about reality - how things did look like when artificial doubles were alertable. In almost all cases UI created all this coffeehousing, slow alerts and fuzzy explanations went unpunished. >Am I still on Earth? You? I don't know. I am speaking as a player. And I can easily tell how often I was damaged by UI flying around the table and by the failure to alert doubles. This is an order of magnitude difference. Not even close. >I always thought that the best way to fight with the UI >influence on the game is *education* and *rectification*. I don't believe in education when it comes to creating rules of the game. You seem to believe that the best way to go is to create rules that work best in ideal world and the then educating people until the cows come home. I believe in rules that work best in real world - I don't believe in social engineerring. >Libert?, ?galit?, fraternit?. >Bullshit. This is a very enlightning and deep remark but I might not have grasped the underlying wisdom so I am going to refrain myself from commenting on it. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wyslij internetowa kartke z zyczeniami! Kliknij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ff2 From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 19 09:02:39 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:02:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be><012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> <005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <494B551F.8000603@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > I consciously use the gaps in Polish Alert Policy to help my opponents. But > if it ever happens that my behavior results in any damage, I would > voluntarily offer to redress this damage. > You deliberately break a law in order to gain an advantage! ;) Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Dec 19 09:04:12 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:04:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pre-Alerts (was monologuing) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c961a9$f6de4960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Frozone (Mr Incredible's best buddy): "He starts monologuing! He starts, like, this prepared speech about how feeble I am compared to him. How inevitable my defeat is, how the world will soon be his, yadda-yadda-yadda... Yammerin'! I mean, the guy has me on a platter, and he won't shut up!" Richard Hills, former posting: >>And where does the word "question" appear in Law 40B6(b)? >> >>If the opponents score a top because of a "crucial" decision >>caused by a concealed partnership understanding for which >>there was no reasonable way of unconcealing, Law 40B6(b) >>still applies. Maciej Bystry: >Fascinating! I like this interpretation. >..... >I'm afraid it would result in *no* questions, so in a >deluge of adjustments. >..... Richard Hills, current posting: Or a deluge of voluntary, not-required-by-Polish-regulation, pre-Alerts? Richard Hills, very previous pre-Alert posting: >>>>Rather, pre-alerting merely needs a good faith warning >>>>of *key* and *probable* unusual agreements. The fact >>>>that I unusually (for Australia) play a *rare* 4NT >>>>opening bid as Acol Blackwood is something that I have >>>>never pre-alerted. Ron Johnson, 28th July 2004: >>>Right, There's no particular point in pre-alerting >>>something that: >>> >>>a) never rates to come up (I've never had a Blackwood >>> opener -- though my partner did have a hand that >>> would have been suitable. I'd already opened a strong >>> NT in first seat though) >>> >>>b) Doesn't require defensive measures. >>> >>>By contrast I note that a few pairs in the recent US >>>trials included important notes about style. >>> >>>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. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 09:24:03 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:24:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081218101640.CC34F1E30EF@f03.poczta.interia.pl><001701c96145$c610d780$15844c59@chello.pl> <008201c961ad$d20af620$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <001c01c961b3$270a5a80$15844c59@chello.pl> Czesc, > Argumenting in circle. If it is hard for the TD and the opponents to > decide > how did the uncertainty affect the bidding, it is usually equally hard for > the "infractors" to use the UI to gain anything. [Konrad] Nope. Because it is very, very difficult to prove to the TD that the UI existed in the first place because the opponents will deny it. If you tell the TD "this chap's hand was shaking a little before he pulled the ALERT card" he will how no gounds for acting even if you know like hell that there is ton of non-verbal communication going on. [Maciej] Oh, this kind of UI is inevitable. But the Alerts are only a small part of it. Hands are shaking making the calls too. Faces, shining eyes, lamps, nerves, undue haste - such things do exist and in most cases you can't do anything. I see that our diagnosis is very similar, but our solutions differ. You're tilting at windmills and I came to grips with it. Most of the players who behave like that belong to the "Old Guard". Small minority are experts (and that's really bad), but against rest of them I may play everyday and I don't care what they do. I don't need +1400, it's enough when they misbid, misdefend, misplay. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 09:51:09 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:51:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] When the rules distort the game In-Reply-To: <67AA6F57-9788-4546-8DDA-9E778A4C8D0C@starpower.net> References: <67AA6F57-9788-4546-8DDA-9E778A4C8D0C@starpower.net> Message-ID: <494B607D.9020200@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > They do this solely because of the possibility that, in > reply to their forcing pass, partner may show some hesitation or > reluctance in doubling. Playing the old two-step, which requires > pulling partner's double with a weak hand, means pulling with the > same hands on which a pull might be "demonstrably suggested" by > partner's reluctance to double, leaving them with the score for > defending the doubled save either after they break the two-step at > the table or have it "done for them" by the TD/AC. "Pass then pull > strong", the new way, lets them pull partner's reluctant doubles with > strong hands that, absent the two-step treatment, would normally be > passed, so they can easily convince the TD/AC that they are merely > following their agreements, and stay out of trouble. > > This is the clearest case of seen of the vagaries of the rules > distorting the game by incentivizing players to adopt acknowledgedly > inferior bidding methods. AG : I don't agree. This is the clearest case I know to explain that it's better when you bid smoothly, and the rules favor this. Having difficulties to decide is a weakness, and the laws exacerbate this weakness. What's the problem ? I can offer a proof of what I state : I play the "inferior treatment" with two partners, and the "superior treatment" of bidding on with a strong hand with another two - the two who don't trance. (notice that it's normal, in a high-level competitive sequence, to take a little time ; a very quick double wouldn't be appreciated either) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 09:57:13 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:57:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] calls/plays versus actions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494B61E9.8090507@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > INTRODUCTION (spin-off from L20 versus L73C?) > > L16B1(a) begins, "After a players makes available to his partner > extraneous information that may suggest A CALL OR PLAY...". So it seems, > at first, that L16B can be interpreted as applying only to calls or plays > rather than all actions (which presumably includes director calls, > decisions after an irregularity, claims, and explanations). > > AG : when deciding w However, L16B3 refers to actions ("When a player has substantial reason to > believe that an opponent who had a logical altnerative as chosen an ACTION > that could be have been suggested by such information...") and L75 also > refers to acts ("South's responsibility is to ACT as though...") > > One seems forced to conclude that either "actions" sometimes refer only to > calls and plays, or "calls and plays" should sometimes be interpreted as > referring to all actions. > > NEW CONTENT > > I think there could be advantages to interpreting laws about calls and > plays to be about actions. > > "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may request, but > only at his own turn to CALL, and explanation of the opponents' prior > auction." (L20F1) > AG : South 1S, West 1D. Has North any right to know what a 1D opening me&ns in their system ? If the answer is positive, then this law should be extended, because it isn't your turn to bid unless you've decided toaccept the bid, and that decision might be influenced by the anwer to your question. One may also find examples involving BOOTs. So I would welcome this change too. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 10:01:10 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:01:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494B62D6.7020101@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > So the ABF Regulating Authority, which lives in the > real world (not in the fantasy word of every single > partnership having discussed doubles as deeply as the > Ali-Hills partnership has done - system notes emailed > on request), has sensibly decided that the minor > inconvenience of doubles being self-alerting (no MI, > since Aussie players know doubles are self-alerting) > is greatly outweighed by the avoidance of vast numbers > of Law 16 infractions had doubles remained alertable > > AG : whence my latest suggestion : when playing against Ali-Hills, you switch off the "self-alerting doubles" rule. There should be a law to allow this. Also, you state there is no MI, but the main problem is other : that whenever you ask about a non-alerted call, the risk of UI is higher. Whence players hesitate about asking, whence damage. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Dec 19 10:02:20 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:02:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <494B551F.8000603@skynet.be> References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be><012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> <005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <494B551F.8000603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <494B631C.8090003@skynet.be> Noticing the smiley, I think this message may be misunderstood: Herman De Wael wrote: > Bystry wrote: >> I consciously use the gaps in Polish Alert Policy to help my opponents. But >> if it ever happens that my behavior results in any damage, I would >> voluntarily offer to redress this damage. >> > > You deliberately break a law in order to gain an advantage! > > ;) > > Herman. > I was in no way trying to say that I caught Maciej in a self-contradicting statement. I have every respect for his actions in this thread, and I act like that myself, when faced with opponents who may never have heard of support doubles (did that one wednesday evening - almost-alerted a support double). I was just trying to show that maybe breaking laws intentionally, striving for what one believes to be a greater good, is not so universally bad as some suggest. Hence the "wink-eye-smiley ;). Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 10:03:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:03:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Efficient [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494B6369.6030506@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Likewise, the ACBL permits odd-even first discard as a > legal convention, but prohibits odd-even signals when > following suit. Why the ACBL differentiates between > these two apparently similar conventions I leave as an > exercise for the reader to answer (and no, Maciej, an > answer of "the ACBL likes creating stupid rules" is > inapplicable in this case :-). > > AG : just in case you want to know, I also think they shouldn't have done that, either. (and i also think they're inferior, becasue there is incresed risk that you don't have the right card to signal) From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 10:09:35 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:09:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> <009101c961ae$9aeb5e90$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> Message-ID: <002c01c961b9$834d6020$15844c59@chello.pl> Czesc, [SNIP] [Konrad] The scale, Maciej, the scale. The frequency. You might be damaged only once in a while by the problems with unalerted doubles. When artificial doubles had to be altered that you were frequently robbed blind by coffeehousing and "I am not sure but I take the double to mean..." body language. >Protecting the potential UI abusers from restricting their options, we >impose UI restrictions on their innocent opponents. Is that reality? Yes, it is. You, in turn, prefer to let people use UI at virtually no cost - whenever they don't know what the double means. I'm talking about reality - how things did look like when artificial doubles were alertable. In almost all cases UI created all this coffeehousing, slow alerts and fuzzy explanations went unpunished. [Maciej] "Robbed"? No, I'm not naive. I'm able to recognize UI. I just don't care. I'm not hunting for the disasters. People make enough stupid mistakes, it is really not necessary to force them to make more. "Unpunished"? You know our culture. I don't think that BLML is a proper place to discuss it. Again, all that you are writing is true, although you exaggerate slightly. But I still disagree with the solution. Force the players to fill the SCs, maybe to pre-Alerts and I will be with you. As it is I'd prefer to be alerted to untypical doubles. By the way, take 1S-4H. In Poland it is non-alertable. I play it as a HCP raise, as do some people. Many play it as splinter, there are probably some who play it as natural. I alert 4H because otherwise the opponent would be in a difficult position. Double of 4H-raise is natural, but double of 4H-splinter frequently means "lead diamonds". Potential of UI from my RHO is huge, he doesn't ask - he has nothing in hearts and diamonds, he asks and passes - he has something in diamonds, he asks and doubles - hearts. Why should he be put in this position? At least first-round artificial calls above 3NT should be alerted, but our Policy says otherwise. [snipped] >I always thought that the best way to fight with the UI >influence on the game is *education* and *rectification*. [Konrad] I don't believe in education when it comes to creating rules of the game. You seem to believe that the best way to go is to create rules that work best in ideal world and the then educating people until the cows come home. I believe in rules that work best in real world - I don't believe in social engineerring. [Maciej] Education of the "Old Guard" is impossible. Education of the low-level players probably too. But they are playing a different game and I don't mind whether they play under the same rules. Starting from the mid-level players the education is possible in my humble opinion. I see many juniors coming to the table and pre-alerting that they use anti-doubles and similar untypical treatments. They are the hope if our national customs don't pollute their minds. >Libert?, ?galit?, fraternit?. >Bullshit. [Konrad] This is a very enlightning and deep remark but I might not have grasped the underlying wisdom so I am going to refrain myself from commenting on it. [Maciej] I could explain it to you, but the Bastille awaits for the assault. Two madman are to be freed, alone I am unable to continue my crusade. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 10:21:51 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:21:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <494B631C.8090003@skynet.be> References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be><012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> <005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <494B551F.8000603@skynet.be> <494B631C.8090003@skynet.be> Message-ID: <494B67AF.1030802@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Noticing the smiley, I think this message may be misunderstood: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Bystry wrote: >> >>> I consciously use the gaps in Polish Alert Policy to help my opponents. But >>> if it ever happens that my behavior results in any damage, I would >>> voluntarily offer to redress this damage. >>> >>> >> You deliberately break a law in order to gain an advantage! >> >> ;) >> >> Herman. >> >> > > I was in no way trying to say that I caught Maciej in a > self-contradicting statement. I have every respect for his actions in > this thread, and I act like that myself, when faced with opponents who > may never have heard of support doubles (did that one wednesday evening > - almost-alerted a support double). > > I was just trying to show that maybe breaking laws intentionally, > striving for what one believes to be a greater good, is not so > universally bad as some suggest. Hence the "wink-eye-smiley ;). > AG : once again, it seems that Belgians have a pragmatic way to react to this (bad) rule. Several experts and/or players of intricated systems have decided to act in the same way, and up to now nobody ever dared call the TD for this. One further problem is that not everybody knows that doubles are self-alerting ; which means the 'you can always enquire' argument isn't valid at moderate level. Anyway, I'm glad to hear about the Aussie rule : 'they shouldn't be alerted ; you may do so but at the risk of creating UI". And I still believe that, as well as you may swithc alerts off, you should be allowed to switch 'non-alertable by exception' to 'alertable.'. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 10:25:23 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:25:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c961b9$834d6020$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> <009101c961ae$9aeb5e90$d77e0453@mala15b1d381fb> <002c01c961b9$834d6020$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <494B6883.3070806@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > > > > By the way, take 1S-4H. In Poland it is non-alertable. I play it as a HCP > raise, as do some people. Many play it as splinter, there are probably some > who play it as natural. I alert 4H because otherwise the opponent would be > in a difficult position. Double of 4H-raise is natural, but double of > 4H-splinter frequently means "lead diamonds". Potential of UI from my RHO is > huge, he doesn't ask - he has nothing in hearts and diamonds, he asks and > passes - he has something in diamonds, he asks and doubles - hearts. Why > should he be put in this position? At least first-round artificial calls > above 3NT should be alerted, but our Policy says otherwise. > > AG : and don't forget to mention what would happen if opponents played 4H as a fit-jump ; then probably double would mean minors. From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 10:20:28 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:20:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be><012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi><005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <494B551F.8000603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004401c961bb$08c0c700$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Bystry wrote: > > > > I consciously use the gaps in Polish Alert Policy to help my opponents. But > > if it ever happens that my behavior results in any damage, I would > > voluntarily offer to redress this damage. > > > > You deliberately break a law in order to gain an advantage! I'd still prefer "consciously use the gaps". I'm a cheat of the worst order, yet it is a secret and nobody should know. By the way, I'd readily allow the dWS, provided it's adepts will voluntarily offer at least +1400 to their opponents. > ;) > > Herman. Regards Maciej From cibor at poczta.fm Fri Dec 19 11:31:57 2008 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: 19 Dec 2008 11:31:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) Message-ID: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> >Faces, shining eyes, lamps, >nerves, undue haste - such things do exist and in most >cases you can't do anything. But there are certain situations that trigger such behaviors a lot more often than others. Doubles in the middle of the auction are one of them and, in fact, are at the top of the list. >I see that our diagnosis is very similar, >but our solutions differ. You're >tilting at windmills and I came to grips with it. Most of the players >who behave like that belong to the "Old Guard". In principle yes, but not here. In this case even the most ethical of players often create tons of unauthorized information because it is almost beyond anyone's ability to avoid creating it. Whenever I happen to play in an incidental partnership and my partner wheels out a double in a contested auction then usually I need at least a few seconds to gather my thoughts and decide what the double means - and typically it isn't just the question of what the double should mean in my understanding of bridge but also in my partner's understanding, it is the question of what my partner thinks about how I will treat his double, all those "what he thinks that I will think" dilemmas that plague all incidental partnerships and most regular partnerships in undiscussed positions. I know that it usually takes a while before I can decide what my casual partner might think the double means and I can tell you that my own hand is almost always a factor. If he doubles 2S and I hold Kxxx in spades then I always assume the double is for take-out. But whether the double is alertable or not shouldn't depend on my own holding. Thus in order to do the right thing I should conduct a mental experiment and ask myself what I would do if I saw this particular bidding sequence in a vacuum - would I alert the double or not? To do all this in tempo and without blatant hesitation is almost impossible. On top of that even if I decide that the double is for penalties I might still take it out! Obviously for safety reasons - if I treat the double as T/O while it was meant as penalty then I might save something from the wreck by ending up in 3NT while if I treat the double as a penalty double but I was meant for T/O then I am almost certainly going to end up with egg on my face. So there is plenty to consider when you see an undiscussed double. It is already complicated enough but there is one more level of complexity. If you ultimately decide that an alert is in order then you want to do it as quickly as possible because you want to alert before your RHO bids. That's why people often initially reach for the ALERT card and then their hand does some back and forth dancing over the bidding box and so on. I know that I whenver I am caught off guard by partner's undiscussed bid (not a double) that might be artificial (say 1NT - dbl - 2H with a casual partner) then I am almost never able to make the decision whether to alert or not in tempo because it takes me at least a few seconds to make up my mind. And from what I can tell hardly anyone is capable of doing that. So I invariably end up sending UI to my partner. This is the reason why the obligation to alert artificial doubles (whatever your defintion of an artificial double is) very often resulted in UI headache. Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wyslij wirtualna kartke swiateczna! Klikinij >>> http://link.interia.pl/f1ff1 From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 12:44:21 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:44:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <000701c961cf$225fd480$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, [snip] > This is the reason why the obligation to > alert artificial doubles (whatever your defintion > of an artificial double is) very often resulted in > UI headache. Sorry that I snipped that all, I fully agree with your cogent analysis. I may be personally biased, because I have a sort of auto-method of avoiding the reception of the UI. a) I very rarely look at partner (my height helps me here) b) I nearly always take partner's calls automaticly - according to my understanding of the system. Only when I know from my own cards (or especially flawed auction) that something has to be wrong, I bother to analyze which of the slew of errors could he make. It may seem slightly self-destructive and probably is, but it minimizes the chance of using UI. With most frequent partners I very rarely have any misunderstandings anyway. c) playing social bridge at local tournament I am quite lax, I discount obvious UI and about rest I don't care, as does everyone. Playing serious bridge I usually achieve a strange state of concentration, practically turning off any reception of extranous information. I don't "hear" the remarks from the near table, I don't "see" the auction at the table to which I carry the changed boards, I don't "receive" neither partner's nor the opponents' behavior (the latter is actually not a good thing). I don't know how to achieve this state, I probably couldn't do it consciously. Despite the above I'm fully aware that sometimes I use UI. It is never voluntary, but certainly it happens. That's something outside the human control. I don't care about it, as it is an integral part of F2F bridge and even screens do not eliminate all the problems. Still I maintain that certain level of allowance for UI usage is necessary. We may differ in the matter of the exact point to put the border, but I'm sure you are aware of the fact that you won't be able to fight it off completely. In my opinion the most obvious, blatant use of UI may be easily detected and ruled against. The more common, not obvious but detectable use of UI will sometimes be ruled against, sometimes not. But it is most common among the low-level players and pick-up partnerships, so it hasn't too much impact on the results obtained against them. And the most common, but nearly undetectable (or unredressable) use of UI - I just ignore it, there is nothing we can do about it. Of course there is another category - conscious or semi-conscious use of UI by experienced and expert partnerships. I call that cheating, although not everybody agrees. That I would want to see eradicated, but knowing about Polish reality I'm not holding my breath. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 12:57:13 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:57:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] overinformation [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4937B0FB.3090909@ulb.ac.be><012601c956f9$58d6fe20$15844c59@chello.pl> <494A5F0F.7050907@jldata.fi> <005901c96151$a9e56c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <494B551F.8000603@skynet.be><494B631C.8090003@skynet.be> <494B67AF.1030802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000f01c961d0$eebc9d00$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > I was in no way trying to say that I caught Maciej in a > self-contradicting statement. I have every respect for his actions in > this thread, and I act like that myself, when faced with opponents who > may never have heard of support doubles (did that one wednesday evening > - almost-alerted a support double). > > I was just trying to show that maybe breaking laws intentionally, > striving for what one believes to be a greater good, is not so > universally bad as some suggest. Hence the "wink-eye-smiley ;). Chill out, Herman. I'm able to recognize jokes and innocent hints. I like them myself. AG : once again, it seems that Belgians have a pragmatic way to react to this (bad) rule. Several experts and/or players of intricated systems have decided to act in the same way, and up to now nobody ever dared call the TD for this. MB: I think it is not a Belgian speciality. Rather of all the people from the countries which have more or less silly regulations. As I think about it now, the best way to achieve the sensible goal is to officially forbid the alerting of some kinds of UI-generating calls, but wink at the practice of occasional breaking of the Policy. That way the masses who aren't able to cope with the UI from their own Alerts are safe and the players who are remembering their systems well may be helpful to their opponents. AG: Anyway, I'm glad to hear about the Aussie rule : 'they shouldn't be alerted ; you may do so but at the risk of creating UI". MB: Rather Polish. I don't remember Richard approving of our practice :-) AG: And I still believe that, as well as you may swithc alerts off, you should be allowed to switch 'non-alertable by exception' to 'alertable.'. MB: I support this. Regards Maciej From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 19 13:33:10 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:33:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000001c961d5$f4359390$dca0bab0$@com> [RH] 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." [DALB] That is all very well, but what about information not given in a non-explanation? I have already quoted this example: West 2C (Polish; 5+ clubs, 11-15 or so) North Pass East 2D (artificial relay) South 2H (hearts) West Double Now, almost everyone outside Poland and 99% of players inside Poland plays that double as hearts (a penalty double). In fact, it denied hearts but showed willingness to defend if East had hearts (a truly unusual double). But there was no method by which East could inform North of this - indeed, he was expressly forbidden by Polish regulations to do so. In Poland, I presume that a knowledgeable North would be permitted to ask about the double without risking being considered to have transmitted UI (otherwise the Polish regulations really are very stupid indeed). But this did not take place in Poland - it took place in Italy, and North-South were not Polish but English. One of two things might have happened: North, believing double to be penalty, might either run from 2H doubled (with short hearts) or not compete to 3H (with long hearts) to the detriment of his side; or South, left in 2H doubled, might misplay through believing that West rather than East had length in trumps. What redress would be given in Poland to North-South in such circumstances? What redress should be given in Italy to a pair of Englishmen? David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 14:55:56 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:55:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <000001c961d5$f4359390$dca0bab0$@com> References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c961d5$f4359390$dca0bab0$@com> Message-ID: <494BA7EC.7070301@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [RH] > > 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." > > [DALB] > > That is all very well, but what about information not given in a non-explanation? I have already quoted this example: > > West 2C (Polish; 5+ clubs, 11-15 or so) > North Pass > East 2D (artificial relay) > South 2H (hearts) > West Double > > Now, almost everyone outside Poland and 99% of players inside Poland plays that double as hearts (a penalty double). AG : by a guy who didn't overcall 2H ? Surely the opportunity window isnarrow. But chang that to 2D Multi p p 2H, and I keep it. > In fact, it denied hearts but showed willingness to defend if East had hearts (a truly unusual double). AG : really unusual ? I would call this an 'action double'. I've got a good overall hand, with tops, and you may leave it in with hearts. And that's the most logical meaning of the double. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Dec 19 15:35:47 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:35:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <494BA7EC.7070301@ulb.ac.be> References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c961d5$f4359390$dca0bab0$@com> <494BA7EC.7070301@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c961e7$15447f40$3fcd7dc0$@com> [AG] I would call this an 'action double'. I've got a good overall hand, with tops, and you may leave it in with hearts. And that's the most logical meaning of the double. [DALB] Of course it isn't. One of the functions of a 2D relay after a Precision or Polish style 2C opening is to ask for a four-card major. When fourth hand bids a major, the logical thing for opener to do if he has that major is to double, to express the opinion that the contract will not make. Why is it "logical" for the hand sitting over the trumps to double in order to invite the hand sitting under the trumps to pass with length? The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid. It is obviously in the interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 19 15:47:34 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:47:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] calls/plays versus actions In-Reply-To: <494B61E9.8090507@ulb.ac.be> References: <494B61E9.8090507@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <22F4FA62-7342-428F-9EBE-91E6AA24C972@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> > >> "During the auction and before the final pass, any player may >> request, but >> only at his own turn to CALL, and explanation of the opponents' prior >> auction." (L20F1) > > AG : South 1S, West 1D. Has North any right to know what a 1D opening > me&ns in their system ? If the answer is positive, then this law > should > be extended, because it isn't your turn to bid unless you've decided > toaccept the bid, and that decision might be influenced by the > anwer to > your question. One may also find examples involving BOOTs. Semantic quibble: It *is* your turn to bid, unless and until you choose to allow the turn to revert to your RHO (by your declining to accept the IB). After 1S-1D, before any further action, you are allowed to bid, and nobody else is. Isn't that what "your turn" means? In craps, when your "RHO" craps out, it's your turn, but you may decline to roll and pass the dice to your left instead. Nobody would say that it's your LHO's turn but you may decide to keep the dice and roll instead. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 16:21:33 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:21:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <000601c961e7$15447f40$3fcd7dc0$@com> References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c961d5$f4359390$dca0bab0$@com> <494BA7EC.7070301@ulb.ac.be> <000601c961e7$15447f40$3fcd7dc0$@com> Message-ID: <494BBBFD.1070905@ulb.ac.be> David Burn a ?crit : > [AG] > > I would call this an 'action double'. I've got a good overall hand, with > tops, and you may leave it in with hearts. And that's the most logical > meaning of the double. > > [DALB] > > Of course it isn't. One of the functions of a 2D relay after a Precision or > Polish style 2C opening is to ask for a four-card major. When fourth hand > bids a major, the logical thing for opener to do if he has that major is to > double, to express the opinion that the contract will not make. Why is it > "logical" for the hand sitting over the trumps to double in order to invite > the hand sitting under the trumps to pass with length? > AG : sorry, misread the sequence. I thought opener bid 2H and n?2 douibled. But anyway, an action double isn't at all absurd, and I'm sure both exist, as well as after 1S p 1NT 2H, roughtly half the World plays 'penalties' and the other half plays 'action' From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 19 16:25:44 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:25:44 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) In-Reply-To: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> References: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> Message-ID: <4D65DC1F-19B2-4867-9DFB-DFCF6F21FC96@starpower.net> On Dec 19, 2008, at 5:31 AM, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >> Faces, shining eyes, lamps, >> nerves, undue haste - such things do exist and in most >> cases you can't do anything. > > But there are certain situations that trigger such > behaviors a lot more often than others. > Doubles in the middle of the auction are one of them > and, in fact, are at the top of the list. > >> I see that our diagnosis is very similar, >> but our solutions differ. You're >> tilting at windmills and I came to grips with it. Most of the players >> who behave like that belong to the "Old Guard". > > In principle yes, but not here. In this case even > the most ethical of players often create tons > of unauthorized information because it is > almost beyond anyone's ability to avoid > creating it. Whenever I happen > to play in an incidental partnership and my > partner wheels out a double in a contested auction > then usually I need at least a few seconds to gather > my thoughts and decide what the double means - and typically > it isn't just the question of what the double should > mean in my understanding of bridge but also in > my partner's understanding, it is the question of what > my partner thinks about how I will treat his double, > all those "what he thinks that I will think" dilemmas > that plague all incidental partnerships and most > regular partnerships in undiscussed positions. > > I know that it usually takes a while before > I can decide what my casual partner might think > the double means and I can tell you that my own > hand is almost always a factor. If he doubles > 2S and I hold Kxxx in spades then I always assume > the double is for take-out. But whether the double > is alertable or not shouldn't depend on my own > holding. Thus in order to do the right thing > I should conduct a mental experiment and ask > myself what I would do if I saw this particular bidding > sequence in a vacuum - would I alert the double or not? > To do all this in tempo and without blatant > hesitation is almost impossible. > On top of that even if I decide that the double > is for penalties I might still take it out! > Obviously for safety reasons - if I treat the double > as T/O while it was meant as penalty then I might > save something from the wreck by ending up in 3NT > while if I treat the double as a penalty double > but I was meant for T/O then I am almost > certainly going to end up with egg on my face. > > So there is plenty to consider when you see > an undiscussed double. It is already complicated > enough but there is one more level of complexity. > If you ultimately decide that an alert is in order then > you want to do it as quickly as possible because > you want to alert before your RHO bids. That's why > people often initially reach for the ALERT card and > then their hand does some back and forth > dancing over the bidding box and so on. > > I know that I whenver I am caught off guard > by partner's undiscussed bid (not a double) that > might be artificial (say 1NT - dbl - 2H with > a casual partner) then I am almost never able to > make the decision whether to alert or not > in tempo because it takes me at least a few > seconds to make up my mind. And from what I can > tell hardly anyone is capable of doing that. > So I invariably end up sending UI to my > partner. > > This is the reason why the obligation to > alert artificial doubles (whatever your defintion > of an artificial double is) very often resulted in > UI headache. Your explanation of partner's double is supposed to answer the question, "What are your partnership agreements regarding that double?" You are explicitly told *not* to attempt to answer the question, "What are you going to take that call as?" In Konrad's scenario, he is playing with a casual partner and, obviously, does not have a partnership agreement about this double. If his casual partner is not inexperienced, he undoubtedly realizes this as well. He will not go through an extended theoretical exercise to determine how you "should" take his double in theory; he will double only if he thinks it likely that you will be able to figure out the meaning of his double by looking at your hand. It is therefore futile (and potentially misleading) for Konrad to go through his own extended theoretical exercise to decide how he would take the double if he couldn't see his hand. Konrad is 100% correct when he says "whether the double is alertable or not shouldn't depend on my own holding". If you have no partnership agreements relevant to it, it should not be alerted, regardless of what you hold. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 19 16:49:48 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:49:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles Message-ID: <0ACD7254-AC96-4C52-91AC-6137BF81B68A@starpower.net> Back in the "bad old days", before the modern view of disclosure, before the introduction of alerts, you asked a question about your opponents' bidding "at your own risk". The danger was that you would open the door to an exchange of (what we would now recognize as) UI by your opponents, which would go (in the legal sense) unpunished. Today you still ask a question about your opponents' bidding at your own risk. But now the danger is that you will open the door to an apparent exchange of UI by your own side, which will "go punished". At least in the bad old days you had a fighting chance of being able to interpret the UI exchanged by your opponents and to use it to your own advantage to better effect than they did, by virtue of your superior bridge skill (the Law wouldn't punish them for it, but maybe you could!). In today's world, you have no recourse at the table; the requisite skill set to come out ahead in this situation is that of the expert bridge lawyer, not the expert bridge player. Sometimes it makes you wonder whether we're really better off. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 16:56:32 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:56:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <4D65DC1F-19B2-4867-9DFB-DFCF6F21FC96@starpower.net> References: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> <4D65DC1F-19B2-4867-9DFB-DFCF6F21FC96@starpower.net> Message-ID: <494BC430.8010502@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Your explanation of partner's double is supposed to answer the > question, "What are your partnership agreements regarding that > double?" You are explicitly told *not* to attempt to answer the > question, "What are you going to take that call as?" > < snip> he will double only if he thinks it likely that you will be able to figure out the meaning of his double by looking at your hand. AG : so, putting those two remarks together, and contrarily to what many have said here, yo do allow saying 'no agreement' and then guessing right, or even not alerting and then guessing an artificial meaning, as in my "guess" post of dec 12th ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 17:00:37 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:00:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <0ACD7254-AC96-4C52-91AC-6137BF81B68A@starpower.net> References: <0ACD7254-AC96-4C52-91AC-6137BF81B68A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <494BC525.2010801@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > Back in the "bad old days", before the modern view of disclosure, > before the introduction of alerts, you asked a question about your > opponents' bidding "at your own risk". The danger was that you would > open the door to an exchange of (what we would now recognize as) UI > by your opponents, which would go (in the legal sense) unpunished. > > Today you still ask a question about your opponents' bidding at your > own risk. But now the danger is that you will open the door to an > apparent exchange of UI by your own side, which will "go punished". > > AG : this would probably be solved if one allowed asking questions without any bridge reason, i.e. "random questioning", like there is "random timing". For pairs using it, UI would be nearly inexistent (and, BTW, so would help to your opponents from the mere fact that you ask). From karel at esatclear.ie Fri Dec 19 17:13:52 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:13:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: > No. Reason e is unlikely. Karel, I'm still waiting for an example of the > hand which makes it hard to decide *between 3S and 4S*. You are writing n-th > post dodging this issue. If in your opinion there are so many hands > suitable, provide *one*. S AKJxx S AQJxxx H x H x D xx D xx C xxxxx C xxxx Smooth 3S Slow 3S S KQ8xxx S KQ87xx H x H x D xx D Jx C xxxx C Qxxx Smooth 3S Slow 3S S Q8xxxx S Q8xxxxx H x H x D xx D xx C KJxx C KJx Smooth 3S Slow 3S S AQJ8x S AKQJx ***** H x H xx D x D xx C xxxxxx C xxxx Smooth 3S Slow 3S S QJxxxxx S KJ7xxxx H - H - D xx D Qx C Qxxx C Qxxx Smooth 3S Slow 3S S Jxxxxx S Jxxxxxx H Q H - D Jx D Q C Kxxx C Kxxxx Smooth 3S Slow 3S All of these hands have several factors in common (1) No fit (2) No preference, raise or pass for a red suit (3) No 3NT likely (Note the **** hand may consider 3NT but with no club stop will likely bid a reluctant 3S) > Bidding 3S with 5 is insane (ok, KQJTx may do). +++ 3S with a 5 card suit is not insane GIVEN their agreements. It isnt pleasant I agree. It is a direct result of their daft agreement (ie) 3D NF on a 4 card suit !! What a disaster! Pd with so many hands with no fit and no preference for either red suit is pretty much forced into bidding almost any 6 card spade suit and any 5 card spade suit which will score more tricks as trumps than as a side suit with a red suit as trumps. What about 5/5 in the blacks a poor spade suit and minimal hand?? Nightmare. This is the whole point to this case. You are trying to put "sane" bridge interpretations on this sequence (ie) your interpretation, when there arent any. 3S must show six. NO IT DOESNT. Assuming no red suit preference 3S has to cover a ridiculous multitude of hands in the clear NF to close NF to invitational category. 3D is a self pre - empt. What 3D should show is something like 5+/5+, 14/15 working points, max 2 spades and it should probably be forcing for 1 round. Their agreement is a what normal people bid 2D on. You are garanteed to get a BIT over this auction with almost any spade oriented hand, no red suit fit, better than min. You have to because there is no room or system to allow you to distinguish ..... anything. > S: x > H: AKxxx > D: Axxx > C: Axx > > S: QJT987 > H: Jx > D: xx > C: Kxx > > How many tricks do you expect to take in hearts and in spades? Yes, for me > this is a clear 3S, but you are arguing against. +++ already been pointed out the ST9 were in the north hand. They cant bring solidity to the south hand. They almost garantee at least 2 losers in the spade suit from souths point of view. So QJ8xxx same hand ... ya i prefer 3H. > we don't know what it indicates => *the laws* (not everyone's whimsy) force > us to allow *any* continuation, even small minority action +++ That seems a very dangerous approach. The offenders in any case can then say well actually I thought he was thinking about a, b + c .... and even if a b + c are plausible, this shouldnt mean that they are automatically accepted. Under scrutiny a b + c while plausible may be found to be unlikely (as in this case). Surely the focus should be on the likely majority interpretation ? Is the pauser ever going to pause with minimum hand which cant decide what to do in 4-8 secs give or take ? - 3H/3D versus 3S is not a monumental decision. Have I 2 or 3 red cards? We dont have sufficient values for game. I have a poor spade suit or at least one which doesnt warrant bidding opposite known shortage. - any raise or game try would never bid 3S, simply makes no sense. Pd might only require a key red card or an extra trump to make game, why on earth would you deny these by bidding a passable 3S. - 3NT. Club stop Y/N. Spade stop Y/N. Some transportation between hands. good 9/10 points Not hard ... doesnt need a tank. So sure while these hands are plausible they are unlikely, and imo sufficiently so to say that while we arent 100% certain its very probable that the pause indicates (a) spade issue not strain (b) possibility of more not less. Given this do we allow 4S ? K. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 19 17:26:04 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:26:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <494BC525.2010801@ulb.ac.be> References: <0ACD7254-AC96-4C52-91AC-6137BF81B68A@starpower.net> <494BC525.2010801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Back in the "bad old days", before the modern view of disclosure, >> before the introduction of alerts, you asked a question about your >> opponents' bidding "at your own risk". The danger was that you would >> open the door to an exchange of (what we would now recognize as) UI >> by your opponents, which would go (in the legal sense) unpunished. >> >> Today you still ask a question about your opponents' bidding at your >> own risk. But now the danger is that you will open the door to an >> apparent exchange of UI by your own side, which will "go punished". > > AG : this would probably be solved if one allowed asking questions > without any bridge reason, i.e. "random questioning", like there is > "random timing". For pairs using it, UI would be nearly inexistent > (and, > BTW, so would help to your opponents from the mere fact that you ask). The problem, of course, is that some percentage of "meaningless questions" will appear in retrospect to have been possibly meaningful, and it is only those that will attract the attention of the TD/AC and thus become your "history". The vast majority of your random questions will be neither remarked upon nor brought to any official attention, and if and when you're called upon to defend the rare apparently meaningful one, your assertion of their existence will be discounted as obviously "self-serving". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Dec 19 17:36:29 2008 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:36:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <494BCD8D.50308@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : >> No. Reason e is unlikely. Karel, I'm still waiting for an example of the >> hand which makes it hard to decide *between 3S and 4S*. You are writing n-th >> post dodging this issue. If in your opinion there are so many hands >> suitable, provide *one*. >> > > S AKJxx S AQJxxx > H x H x > D xx D xx > C xxxxx C xxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S > > AG : I would say the contrary. Bidding 3S on a 6-card suit is much more easier than on a 5-card suit. > S KQ8xxx S KQ87xx > H x H x > D xx D Jx > C xxxx C Qxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S > > AG : sorry, the first hand is excluded (or do you think it is worth 8+ ?) > S Q8xxxx S Q8xxxxx > H x H x > D xx D xx > C KJxx C KJx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S > > AG : same remark, at least for the one on the left > S AQJ8x S AKQJx ***** > H x H xx > D x D xx > C xxxxxx C xxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S > > AG : same response as before. 3S would be much more difficult to produce with the hand on the left. > S QJxxxxx S KJ7xxxx > H - H - > D xx D Qx > C Qxxx C Qxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S > AG :surely the hand on the left is a 3S response ? Apparently, most of the hands with which you'd bid a smooth 3S wouldn't be a smooth 3S (or no 1S response) to them. So I regret to say you failed the test. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Dec 19 18:26:23 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 12:26:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <494BC430.8010502@ulb.ac.be> References: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> <4D65DC1F-19B2-4867-9DFB-DFCF6F21FC96@starpower.net> <494BC430.8010502@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Dec 19, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> Your explanation of partner's double is supposed to answer the >> question, "What are your partnership agreements regarding that >> double?" You are explicitly told *not* to attempt to answer the >> question, "What are you going to take that call as?" > > < snip> > > he will double only if he > thinks it likely that you will be able to figure out the meaning of > his double by looking at your hand. > > AG : so, putting those two remarks together, and contrarily to what > many > have said here, yo do allow saying 'no agreement' and then guessing > right, or even not alerting and then guessing an artificial > meaning, as > in my "guess" post of dec 12th ? I don't recall Alain's post of 12/12, but, in general, sure. I investigate, of course, but if my findings are that (a) you had no agreement, (b) partner had a reasonable hope/expectation that you would be able to figure out his intention from the auction thus far and the contents of your hand, and (c) your "guess" was consistent with the auction thus far and the contents of your hand, then there is no basis for finding any infraction. If I am satisfied as to (b) and (c), then it doesn't matter whether or not partner's intention (in (b)) and your guess (in (c)) match (although this might well be critical for assessing damage *if* there were an infraction). If the meaning in question were artificial or esoteric, that wouldn't change my approach, but in real life it would make it far less likely for the "balance of probabilities" to support finding either (b) or (c). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Dec 19 19:03:41 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:03:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles In-Reply-To: <494BC525.2010801@ulb.ac.be> References: <0ACD7254-AC96-4C52-91AC-6137BF81B68A@starpower.net> <494BC525.2010801@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <494BE1FD.9070806@talktalk.net> Alain Gottcheiner this would probably be solved if one allowed asking questions without any bridge reason, i.e. "random questioning", like there is "random timing". For pairs using it, UI would be nearly nonexistent (and, BTW, so would help to your opponents from the mere fact that you ask). [Nigel] Canny players warned that daft "alerting" and "asking" laws would open a can of worms.. Over the years, they have been proved right several times per session. For example, Alain's *random questioning* inevitably provides UI. Presumably, if you *don't* ask and you don't already know, then you don't need to know :). In the UK, the "having none" law is now routinely similarly exploited . (The UK suffers from the WBFLCs cave-in, pandering to ACBL UI addicts). When partner shows out, then *not* asking tells partner that you *already know*, because you have the rest of the cards in the suit :) I bet that "attitude" signals are more popular than "count" in America :) :) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Dec 19 21:26:15 2008 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 20:26:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494C0367.2070108@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] In one of his more sensible suggestions about the Laws, Jeff Rubens proposed the introduction of a laminated card with a grid of boxescontaining common explanations such as "Transfer", "Invitational" and "One Round Force". An opponent would point to the "?" box on her laminated card, and the player would point to the appropriate box in response. Even if UI was still transmitted by reading partner's finger signals, at least some of the reasons for a Law 16C1 (e.g. overhearing remarks at another table) ruling would be eliminated. [nigel] That seems a good idea to me. If a majority of the WBFLC approve such an idea, why don't the WBFLC include it in the law-book as a *default* law, which a chauvinist local regulator is free to over-ride. Wiser regulators can implement it, once they are aware of it. I hope the 2018 law-book is *complete* From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 21:32:59 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:32:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) References: <20081219103157.F267736FDEF@f44.poczta.interia.pl> <4D65DC1F-19B2-4867-9DFB-DFCF6F21FC96@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002f01c96218$fc18f140$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Your explanation of partner's double is supposed to answer the > question, "What are your partnership agreements regarding that > double?" You are explicitly told *not* to attempt to answer the > question, "What are you going to take that call as?" You must understand Eric that most Polish players do not have any idea about the laws. Konrad's analysis is possibly slightly exaggerated, but nevertheless close to the truth, to the real happenings. ""I think it is", "I'm not sure" and similar were/are very popular. Not amongst the experts, but experts are a minority and still some of them are ignorant. > In Konrad's > scenario, he is playing with a casual partner and, obviously, does > not have a partnership agreement about this double. If his casual > partner is not inexperienced, he undoubtedly realizes this as well. Again, "experienced"/"inexperienced" is in Poland not equivalent to "knowledgable about laws"/"ignorant about laws". You are accustomed to American standards with your AC Teams, casebooks, litigious society. Were you to see some of our AC decisions (now we have NAC, but not long ago all ACs were built ad hoc) you would be shocked. Clear case of UI, in which chosen call was superior but inferior call was clearly a LA (confirmed by a poll), correctly ruled by a TD and an AC, was a basis for a great rant, silly articles in popular bridge magazine, accusations of bias, deprecation of laws, whatever. > He will not go through an extended theoretical exercise to determine > how you "should" take his double in theory; he will double only if he > thinks it likely that you will be able to figure out the meaning of > his double by looking at your hand. Doubles often serve as I-don't-know-what-to-do calls. What you are writing is rational, but nevertheless most players just double and start to worry afterwards. Casual/pick-up partnerships often talk over the system in a very cursory way - WJ/Strefa, openings, Blackwood, Odwrotka, Pro, 1NT overcall, rest standard. And of course everyone has his own view what is "standard" and later bids according to it. We are so used to the fact that doubles cover many hands, that not doubling in the case of doubt would left the players without the real means of continuing. Try an experiment - in the last moment, not leaving any time to consult/think that over, force an average pair to play penalty instead of negative doubles. And look what would the player do after 1C(PC)-1S-? having 2-4-4-3 without spade stopper. Panic, confusion, helplessness, that will be the result. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 21:55:18 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:55:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future ofBLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000f01c96165$1a63a960$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c961d5$f4359390$dca0bab0$@com> Message-ID: <003d01c9621c$1990dbe0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > [RH] > > 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." > > [DALB] > > That is all very well, but what about information not given in a non-explanation? I have already quoted this example: > > West 2C (Polish; 5+ clubs, 11-15 or so) > North Pass > East 2D (artificial relay) > South 2H (hearts) > West Double > > Now, almost everyone outside Poland and 99% of players inside Poland plays that double as hearts (a penalty double). Overkill. Many good players in Poland are aware that this double could have a reversed meaning. > In fact, it denied hearts but showed willingness to defend if East had hearts > (a truly unusual double). But there was no method by which East could inform North > of this - indeed, he was expressly forbidden by Polish regulations to do so. Unusual? Logical. With heart shortness and unwillingness to defend you may bid 2S, so double is more defence-oriented. What is unusual is reversing the doubles (not only here, in many other sequences) but it gains more and more popularity. > In Poland, I presume that a knowledgeable North would be permitted to ask about the > double without risking being considered to have transmitted UI (otherwise the Polish > regulations really are very stupid indeed). You are always allowed to ask. In this situation reasonable TD won't rule against you if you point to him that some use that double as not penalty. That doesn't change the fact that our regulations are very stupid. Bunny is screwed in similar situations. To protect himself he would have to ask about most of the doubles which would make any alert restrictions void and redundant. David, why do you think I was quibbling about that with Richard? He could not understand why do I break our Policy voluntarily. I alert such doubles and I'm ready to bear the consequences if UI from alert results in my own poor score. Till now it never happened. > But this did not take place in Poland - it took place in Italy, and North-South > were not Polish but English. One of two things might have happened: > > North, believing double to be penalty, might either run from 2H doubled > (with short hearts) or not compete to 3H (with long hearts) to the detriment of his side; or > > South, left in 2H doubled, might misplay through believing that West rather than East had length in trumps. > > What redress would be given in Poland to North-South in such circumstances? > What redress should be given in Italy to a pair of Englishmen? In Poland - no redress. In Italy - I don't know. If there are no mandatory pre-alerts and SCs - no redress. If pre-alerts and/or SCs are mandatory - such doubles should be described in an "unusal agreements" field and if the opponents didn't comply you should get redress. > David Burn > London, England Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Dec 19 22:35:01 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 22:35:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be><004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl><001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl><003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > > No. Reason e is unlikely. Karel, I'm still waiting for an example of the > > hand which makes it hard to decide *between 3S and 4S*. You are writing n-th > > post dodging this issue. If in your opinion there are so many hands > > suitable, provide *one*. > > S AKJxx S AQJxxx > H x H x > D xx D xx > C xxxxx C xxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S Second one is easy 3S, first one too, but inexperienced player could hesitate slightly. > S KQ8xxx S KQ87xx > H x H x > D xx D Jx > C xxxx C Qxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S First one is not 1S response. Second one is clear, easy 3S. > S Q8xxxx S Q8xxxxx > H x H x > D xx D xx > C KJxx C KJx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S Both are automatic 3S, there is nothing to think about. > S AQJ8x S AKQJx ***** > H x H xx > D x D xx > C xxxxxx C xxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S Second one is normal 3S, but I agree that someone could hesitate slightly. First one should be easy, but inexperienced player could hesitate slightly. > S QJxxxxx S KJ7xxxx > H - H - > D xx D Qx > C Qxxx C Qxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S First hand is not a 1S response, second one is clear, easy 3S. > S Jxxxxx S Jxxxxxx > H Q H - > D Jx D Q > C Kxxx C Kxxxx > > Smooth 3S Slow 3S First hand is interesting. Spades are so weak that pass, 3H and 3S are all reasonable. Second one is clear, easy 3S. > All of these hands have several factors in common > > (1) No fit > (2) No preference, raise or pass for a red suit > (3) No 3NT likely (Note the **** hand may consider 3NT but with no > club stop will likely bid a reluctant 3S) And all of these hands (except the one with *****) have nothing in common with thinking about 4S. Karel, misfitting hands with 21-23 are not suited for any game. Even partscores are usually in danger. 3S is not barring partner, if he has something like 3-5-4-1 or magical 2-5-5-1 (2-5-4-2) he is allowed to raise. > > Bidding 3S with 5 is insane (ok, KQJTx may do). > > +++ 3S with a 5 card suit is not insane GIVEN their agreements. It > isnt pleasant I agree. It is a direct result of their daft agreement > (ie) 3D NF on a 4 card suit !! What a disaster! Pd with so many > hands with no fit and no preference for either red suit is pretty much > forced into bidding almost any 6 card spade suit and any 5 card spade > suit which will score more tricks as trumps than as a side suit with a > red suit as trumps. What about 5/5 in the blacks a poor spade suit > and minimal hand?? Nightmare. This is the whole point to this case. Their agreements are not well thought, but are not crazy. Remember that 1S is 8+, so with 14-15 HCP and without real misfit you should usually find the playable contract on the 3 level. And although 3D may be bid on a 4-card suit, it usually will be 5, 4 only with exceptional hands. So partner having 5-1-2-5 without strong spades should pass. Wise rule - when in misfit, pass as soon as possible. > You are garanteed to get a BIT over this auction with almost any spade > oriented hand, no red suit fit, better than min. You have to because > there is no room or system to allow you to distinguish ..... anything. You have it backwards. Without any red suit tolerance 3S is automatic. What is the reason for the hesitation, for God's sake? > > S: x > > H: AKxxx > > D: Axxx > > C: Axx > > > > S: QJT987 > > H: Jx > > D: xx > > C: Kxx > > > > How many tricks do you expect to take in hearts and in spades? Yes, for me > > this is a clear 3S, but you are arguing against. > > +++ already been pointed out the ST9 were in the north hand. They > cant bring solidity to the south hand. They almost garantee at least > 2 losers in the spade suit from souths point of view. So QJ8xxx same > hand ... ya i prefer 3H. That was an example to show you that sometimes playing spades is better, sometimes reds. It had nothing in common with your case. Here with lower hand 3S is clear-cut, but removing T9 of spades you would find different opinions. > > we don't know what it indicates => *the laws* (not everyone's whimsy) force > > us to allow *any* continuation, even small minority action > > +++ That seems a very dangerous approach. The offenders in any case > can then say well actually I thought he was thinking about a, b + c > .... and even if a b + c are plausible, this shouldnt mean that they > are automatically accepted. Under scrutiny a b + c while plausible > may be found to be unlikely (as in this case). Surely the focus > should be on the likely majority interpretation ? There is a difference between "we don't know what it indicates" and "we have two indicated possibilities, one of them is more probable". If action A caters for e.g. 75% of reasons for partner's hesitation it should be certainly disallowed. The problem with your case is that b+c is more likely than a. And as I already wrote pass is more suggested than 4S. > - 3H/3D versus 3S is not a monumental decision. Have I 2 or 3 red > cards? We dont have sufficient values for game. I have a poor spade > suit or at least one which doesnt warrant bidding opposite known > shortage. Karel, you are deliberately obstinate. There are hundreds of different hands with which 3D,3H,3S could be better. Deciding between 3S and 4S is not hard, that is not a classic position of rejecting/accepting an invitation with agreed suit, this is a very special sequence in which 4S requires very good (or very long) suit. I give up, you simply want to punish those players at every price. So do it on your own and don't expect support from me. Regards Maciej From bobpark at connecttime.net Sat Dec 20 00:38:04 2008 From: bobpark at connecttime.net (Robert Park) Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 18:38:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles (was: the future of BLML) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <494C305C.2080204@connecttime.net> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: "So is a three-legged stool with two legs removed sensible?" Yep! My uncle (an old timer) wore one strapped on his fanny while milking his cows. --Bob Park From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 20 07:59:25 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 07:59:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 bis Message-ID: <000901c96270$7ed7c960$15844c59@chello.pl> Two more nits to pick. First one - I saw some written opinions that the infractor is allowed to correct an IB to a systemic call satisfying the requirements of L27B1(b), even if his hand do not correspond to the meaning of this call. Please, tell me I am wrong? Because if I am correct, this is a perfect legal controlled pseudo-psyche. The only such possibility in the whole lawbook. Maybe first-time IBers won't be so sophisticated, but such technical mistakes have a tendency to haunt the same careless players many times, so... May I ask for the answers to the following questions: - what should the partner of the IBer respond to the question about the systemic meaning of the substituted call? - what do you think the ethical partners (minority) will respond? - what do you think the average semi-ethical partners (majority) will respond? [I deliberately omit cheats] - how do you see the NOS coping with the concealed or even revealed pseudo-psyche? - what is the chance that the average club-level TD will be good enough to recognize the damage and apply L27? Second one - in theory the substituted call covers all the possible meanings of the IB, so the NOS do not need to know what did the IBer intend. Fine, but in practice it is probable that there are numerous cases in which the TD isn't able to check all the possibilities (especially negative inferences) at the table (whence "in his opinion"). So I have another questions: - is a TD obliged to apply the L27D test after the deal automaticly? - if not, what is the chance that inexperienced opponents will be aware that they were damaged? "My friend, thou art good and cautious and wise; nay, thou art perfect --and I, too, speak with thee wisely and cautiously. And yet I am mad. But I mask my madness. I would be mad alone." Regards Maciej From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 20 15:03:53 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 14:03:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Times is 'ard, but the sun occasionally shines Message-ID: <000e01c962af$18164000$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000901c96270$7ed7c960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 01:59:25 -0500, Bystry wrote: > Two more nits to pick. > > First one - I saw some written opinions that the infractor is allowed to > correct an IB to a systemic call satisfying the requirements of L27B1(b), > even if his hand do not correspond to the meaning of this call. Please, > tell > me I am wrong? > > Because if I am correct, this is a perfect legal controlled > pseudo-psyche. > The only such possibility in the whole lawbook. Maybe first-time IBers > won't > be so sophisticated, but such technical mistakes have a tendency to haunt > the same careless players many times, so... > > May I ask for the answers to the following questions: > > - what should the partner of the IBer respond to the question about the > systemic meaning of the substituted call? EXAMPLE 1NT 2S(natural) 2D/3H(1) 2D was a transfer to hearts. 3H shows hearts and denies a spade stopper, playing Lebensohol. 2NT would have been a relay to 3C, at which point 3H would have shown hearts and a spade stopper. But this sequence is now barred. ANSWER Partnership agreements? In the ACBL, we are not allowed to change partnership agreements based on existence of the insufficient bid. So we cannot agree in advance that 3H might be bid with a spade stopper. However, we can bid 3H with a spade stopper, and partner can know as a matter of common bridge knowledge that might have happened. If I explain that to the opponents, it might look like I am using more than common bridge knowledge. So I just explain the partnership agreement. I will probably say "In our system, that bid shows..." rather than "He has...." If I am the 3NT bidder, I cannot confidenly use this meager UI because partner and I might not agree on common bridge knowledge. I think this fell into the "worried-about-what-will-happen-with-the-new-L27" category, not the "actual-problems-with-new-L27" category. But you seem to be acknowledging that by calling these "nits". If you can change partnership agreements, I recommend that a minimal correction of the insufficient bid in the same suit mean the same thing as the insufficient bid. But you should at least agree that the correction to a nonbarring bid might not be systemic in order to avoid a barring partner. Then explain that. > > - what do you think the ethical partners (minority) will respond? Hmmm, I always thought that being ethical meant following the law. Could you perhaps mean "friendly" or "generous"? > > - what do you think the average semi-ethical partners (majority) will > respond? Hmm. Most players do not have photographic memory of the laws and have to make do at the table with their simplified understanding. The chance that they will know the proper answer to this question (if there is one) seems small. Could you have meant "semi-ignorant" instead of "semi-ethical"? > > [I deliberately omit cheats] They should develop a hidden communication system so that a barring correction is likely to be the best contract. Then L27D doesn't kick in. > > - how do you see the NOS coping with the concealed or even revealed > pseudo-psyche? > > - what is the chance that the average club-level TD will be good enough > to > recognize the damage and apply L27? Nice question. 1. If the replacement call was systemically correct and satisfies L27B1(b), no problem. The IB has no UI. 2. If they end up in the same contract as the rest of the field, or a contract that does worse, no problem. 3. Otherwise, did the partner of the insufficient bidder appear to use the extra information in the insufficient bid? Isn't this easier than making the insufficient bid UI? It seems to be the same except if the insufficient bid was UI, then you might have to adjust even if they end up in the same contract as the rest of the field. > > > Second one - in theory the substituted call covers all the possible > meanings > of the IB, so the NOS do not need to know what did the IBer intend. I think that the substituted call has to be more specific than the intended meaning of the insufficient bid. Otherwise it will be unworkable. Bob, who executed a smother play yesterday! Unfortunately, it relied on misdefence and he was the misdefender. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 20 18:54:04 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:54:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Wonderful L27 bis References: <000901c96270$7ed7c960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000901c962cb$f319b080$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, thanks for the response. > > - what should the partner of the IBer respond to the question about the > > systemic meaning of the substituted call? > > EXAMPLE > 1NT 2S(natural) 2D/3H(1) > > 2D was a transfer to hearts. 3H shows hearts and denies a spade stopper, > playing Lebensohol. 2NT would have been a relay to 3C, at which point 3H > would have shown hearts and a spade stopper. But this sequence is now > barred. > > ANSWER > Partnership agreements? In the ACBL, we are not allowed to change > partnership agreements based on existence of the insufficient bid. So we > cannot agree in advance that 3H might be bid with a spade stopper. > However, we can bid 3H with a spade stopper, and partner can know as a > matter of common bridge knowledge that might have happened. > > If I explain that to the opponents, it might look like I am using more > than common bridge knowledge. So I just explain the partnership agreement. > I will probably say "In our system, that bid shows..." rather than "He > has...." That's what I was afraid of. "Common" bridge knowledge is not common. I would know that 3H may be off-center, but there are many players who won't grasp that. We shouldn't forget that as BLML lurkers we know much more about the appliance of the laws than average players. L27B1(a) correction is generally understood (it was allowed for many years and people are used to it), but new L27B1(b) correction may easily confuse the players. Look how much disagreement it caused here, at the table it is certainly worse. The opponents may think that if the correction was allowed, then the substituted call would mean the same as the IB or would be more precise, but that it couldn't be "pseudo-psychic". Maybe the TD should warn them? > If you can change partnership agreements, I recommend that a minimal > correction of the insufficient bid in the same suit mean the same thing as > the insufficient bid. But you should at least agree that the correction to > a nonbarring bid might not be systemic in order to avoid a barring > partner. Then explain that. I don't need any such agreements. I don't remember the last time I made an IB, it was probably at the beginning of my bridge career. I want to know how to react to hypothetical IB corrections of my opponents. > > - what do you think the ethical partners (minority) will respond? > > Hmmm, I always thought that being ethical meant following the law. Could > you perhaps mean "friendly" or "generous"? Right, by "ethical" I meant "extra ethical". I think that such players will warn their opponents that the IBer may misbid deliberately. > > - what do you think the average semi-ethical partners (majority) will > > respond? > > Hmm. Most players do not have photographic memory of the laws and have to > make do at the table with their simplified understanding. The chance that > they will know the proper answer to this question (if there is one) seems > small. Could you have meant "semi-ignorant" instead of "semi-ethical"? By "semi-ethical" I meant all those who for example claim their hesitation was 4 seconds (instead of real 9) or always claim that their mistake was a slip of hand, not a slip of mind. They are no cheats or liars, it is quite normal automatic self-defense and self-delusion. Such players will agree after the IB accident that next time they will always correct to e.g. the lowest possible call or to the most detailed. They won't see anything bad in it, they wouldn't even know that their RA did or didn't forbid that. And of course they won't explain the substituted calls according to their new agreements, not because of CPU, but because of ignorance. So in a way you are right, "semi-ignorant" is a good notion. > > - what is the chance that the average club-level TD will be good enough > > to > > recognize the damage and apply L27? > > Nice question. > > 1. If the replacement call was systemically correct and satisfies > L27B1(b), no problem. The IB has no UI. > > 2. If they end up in the same contract as the rest of the field, or a > contract that does worse, no problem. > > 3. Otherwise, did the partner of the insufficient bidder appear to use the > extra information in the insufficient bid? > > Isn't this easier than making the insufficient bid UI? It seems to be the > same except if the insufficient bid was UI, then you might have to adjust > even if they end up in the same contract as the rest of the field. The problem is that there will seldom be something like "the contract of the rest of the field". Insufficient bids often happen in competitive bidding and the results of such deals vary from -800 to +800. So adjusting under L27D may not be so easy as it ostensibly looks. What's more, the NOS may not know they were damaged - the result may seem normal for them and only after the score publication they'll get to know that this result was poor because e.g. the field was overbidding with the opponents hands but at this table the non-standard choice of the substituted call prevented them from pushing the opps higher. In my opinion the TD should obligatorily check the result after the board. Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 20 21:07:08 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:07:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1a's reference to Law 16D In-Reply-To: <001b01c961a2$fba105c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <494AFC1C.9080704@talktalk.net> <001301c96183$51e45ba0$15844c59@chello.pl> <003401c96198$824a9920$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001b01c961a2$fba105c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Posted for Al Levy. ------------------------- Something to ponder... Law 16D2 states that, for the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action ... is UI. The interpretation is drawn that if Law 16D doesn't apply (as stated in Law 27B1a) that the opposite applies, namely, that the information gains from the insufficient bid is AI. Interestingly, it doesn't say that Law 16D2 doesn't apply, it says that Law 16D doesn't apply, so that Law 16D1 also doesn't apply. Law 16D1 states that the information from the insufficient bid is AI to the non-offending side. Following the above interpretation that the opposite applies, is the information to the non-offending side now interpreted as UI???? Of course this is nonsense! Bystry wrote... > 1C-(2S)-2H > The player didn't see 2S and thought he is showing strong, slam > invitational > hand with 6 (rarely 5) very good hearts. Now he corrects 2H to 3H, which > is > forcing, but shows only 5+ hearts, not necessarily strong and the overall > strength may be only sufficient for game. "Law 16D does not apply" so the > knowledge that the infractor has actually a strong hand with a very good > suit seems to be AI for his partner. [see above...AL] Now he may cuebid > safely with Jx in > hearts, whereas normally he would bid 3NT. When something doesn't apply, one shouldn't go any further. It doesn't apply. Instead, refer to part D, as directed. 27D. states that "if...the Director judges at the end of play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different...he shall award an adjusted score..." [I digress...The next sentence is confusing, namely, "In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". This implies that the auction should immediately stop and an adjustment should be made. This can't be right!] Also 27D states that 12B1 applies, which takes away any advantage gained by the offending side. So while 16D doesn't apply, it is clear that the insufficient bid is a form of UI, but not one that is dealt with by Law 16D. What is the difference? If Law 16D applied, the penalty could be more severe that under 27D. In practice, a player can receive a PP for a clear case of using UI. This doesn't apply to 27D, but might apply to 16D. Even if that isn't the case, it is of little concern...Law 16D DOESN'T APPLY. Law 27D DOES! Al Levy From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 20 22:04:19 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:04:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27B1a's reference to Law 16D References: <494AFC1C.9080704@talktalk.net><001301c96183$51e45ba0$15844c59@chello.pl><003401c96198$824a9920$0302a8c0@Mildred><001b01c961a2$fba105c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <002301c962e6$86f0d4e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Bystry wrote... > > > 1C-(2S)-2H > > The player didn't see 2S and thought he is showing strong, slam > > invitational > > hand with 6 (rarely 5) very good hearts. Now he corrects 2H to 3H, which > > is > > forcing, but shows only 5+ hearts, not necessarily strong and the overall > > strength may be only sufficient for game. "Law 16D does not apply" so the > > knowledge that the infractor has actually a strong hand with a very good > > suit seems to be AI for his partner. [see above...AL] Now he may cuebid > > safely with Jx in > > hearts, whereas normally he would bid 3NT. > > > When something doesn't apply, one shouldn't go any further. It doesn't > apply. > > Instead, refer to part D, as directed. 27D. states that "if...the > Director judges at the end of play that without assistance gained through > the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been > different...he shall award an adjusted score..." [I digress...The next > sentence is confusing, namely, "In his adjustment he should seek to > recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the > insufficient bid not occurred". This implies that the auction should > immediately stop and an adjustment should be made. This can't be > right!] Also 27D states that 12B1 applies, which takes away any > advantage gained by the offending side. So while 16D doesn't apply, it is > clear that the insufficient bid is a form of UI, but not one that is dealt > with by Law 16D. > > What is the difference? If Law 16D applied, the penalty could be more > severe that under 27D. In practice, a player can receive a PP for a clear > case of using UI. This doesn't apply to 27D, but might apply to 16D. > Even if that isn't the case, it is of little concern...Law 16D DOESN'T > APPLY. Law 27D DOES! I'd advise to read someone's contributions as a whole, not to jump on separate fragments out of context. [from the same email] Right, we have "but see D following". So the TD may change the slam achieved by the offenders to the game afterwards. But firstly we tell the OS "there is no further rectification" and "insufficient bid is AI for you" and later we take away their good score saying in effect "sure, it was AI, but we will now rule as if it was UI". What is a reason for such maneuvering? Wouldn't it be clear and easier to understand for the players to simply apply L16D? Wouldn't it be more just to allow them to reach the appropriate contract at their own, not by the TD whimsy at the end of the board? [/ftse] You don't have to lecture me what is written in the law. I gave my *personal opinion* that it would be more just and reasonable to continue the auction with L16D restrictions, but without L27D safeguard. That way the players could make their own decisions without the risk, that after achieving correct and cold slam the TD will take it away from them, because he will mistakenly judge they are too poor players to achieve it without the help of insufficient bid. UI constrains may seem burdensome, but damn it, they infracted the law, caused the whole mess, so shouldn't kick up a fuss. Anyway, normal table result is achieved, both sides may play bridge and there is no need for fantasy TD rulings. Regards Maciej PS Bob, when you use "reply to the message" option try to choose the message from the given topic (Wonderful L27 in this case) and reply to it; or use "new email" with new subject. Your emails perturb the threading. Thanks in advance. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 21 00:58:52 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 23:58:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] All mankind's concern Message-ID: <001001c96300$6f20cc20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> <004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: I'll be honest I didnt really understand your *3S 4S* query. Having read your previous reply what you are looking for are 3.5 spade bids. I thought you wanted a smooth 3S bid which differs to a slowish one by 1 trick. S Q8xxxxx 6 loser hand. Problem is may lose 3 trumps and a club. May not. H x opposite the actual hand its rigid. Would I consider 4 - yup. Would D Ax the actual pair ? Not easy or clear cut C Kxx S QJxxxxx 6 loser hand again 2/3 spades and a club loser or even 2 club losers. H - opposite the right hand S AK DK and club singleton could make 6 D Ax Be nice to get pds input but 4S must be considered. Opposite the actual C Jxxx hand cold. S AQJxxx 8 loser hand 10 count. HQ could be huge. SK HAJxxx DAxxx CQ/Kxx easy 10 H Qx tricks. Opposite wrong hand Sx HAKJxx DAQxx C xxx might not even make 3S D xx 3H ? surely 3S plays just as well. Weaker hands will bid 3S or 3H quicker C Jxx S KQxxxxx 6/7 loser. Almost certain to have 3 losers but can they take 4. Some hands easy H xx others a disaster D xx C KQ S KJ8xxx 8 loser. The 2 red cards are huge, but could still lose 2 clubs and 2 spades H Qx Pass, 3H ? 3S is surely as good. Opposite the actual dummy 4 is cold. D Axx Same distribution weaker hand will find 3H/3S quicker so wont be as good as this. C xx S KQJxxx 7 loser good spades, working red queens, club is worrysome. Easily lose 2S H Q and 2+ clubs. On the other hand Opposite the actual hand 5 is cold. We punt D Qx 4S ? We go 3S and maybe pd can find a raise ? Weaker hand will find a quicker C Jxxx 3S, nothing to consider. S AKQJx 7 loser. If pd has 1 spade can draw trumps and should be able to get 5 red tricks H xx 3NT is out no club stop. Red suit game possible but 4S certainly reasonable. D Qxx weaker hand will bid 3H or 3S quickly. C xxx S Jxxxxxx 7 loser 3 spade losers probably on top - but that may be it for the defence. H Qx Could lose 4 spades or 3 + CA. Smooth 3S ? D A C Kxx S AQJxxx 6 loser - 2 spades one outside trick, probably the extent of it. Then again H x 2 club losers and 2 or even 3 spade losers is quite possible. Even a red ace with D Qx the defence could scupper the contract. 3NT .. communications look awkard C Qxxx prefer spades. Weaker hand will bid a smooth 3S. S Jxxxxxx 5 loser. 3Spades and a club loser well possible. Then again CAQ a mere 6 count H - + spade void and 4S is 36% at worse. one Spade with pd and we up to 62%. D A wouldnt even consider 4S ? C KTxxx S QJxxxxx 1st off anyone passing 1H with this hand clearly hasnt a clue 8+ pts my foot. H - 6/7 loser. CA, DA, any 2 spades + fill in the other 6/7 points makes 4S odds on. D xx Even 1 spade and alot of other distributions make 4S. I'd consider and on C Qxxx occasion will bid 4S. Opposite the actual hand 4S has play. Easy smooth 3S ? Each of these hands given the prediciment the 3D has put you in, force you to weigh up the options. You cant weigh up options with a poor hand as you dont have any. With a weak/NF hand the system forces pass, 3H or 3S. Given this auction is going to be fairly frequent (5/4 14/15 count) the NF decisions should be well practiced and easy. The others regardless of what the cause is for the BIT (strain, no stopper, pass, 3H, 3NT, 3S vs 4, 3.5S) MUST indicate "more". That more makes bidding on easier. K. From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Dec 21 04:18:15 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:18:15 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: <4947DEAF.5070608@ulb.ac.be> <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> <004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: hmm the formatting came out a tad wierd sorry about that. K From karel at esatclear.ie Sun Dec 21 13:29:59 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:29:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: References: <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> <004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Reformatted I'll be honest I didnt really understand your *3S 4S* query. Having read your previous reply what you are looking for are 3.5 spade bids. I thought you wanted a smooth 3S bid which differs to a slowish one by 1 trick. S Q8xxxxx H x D Ax C Kxx 6 loser hand. Problem is may lose 3 trumps and aclub. May not. opposite the actual hand its rigid. Would I consider 4 - yup. Would the actual pair ? Not easy or clear cut requires consideration. ----------------------------------------- S QJxxxxx H - D Ax C Jxxx 6 loser hand again 2/3 spades and a club loser or even 2 club losers. opposite the right hand S AK DK and club singleton could make 6 Be nice to get pds input but 4S must be considered. Opposite the actual hand cold. -------------------------------------------- S AQJxxx H Qx D xx C Jxx 8 loser hand 10 count. HQ could be huge. SK HAJxxx DAxxx CQ/Kxx easy 10 tricks. Opposite wrong hand Sx HAKJxx DAQxx Cxxx might not even make 3S 3H ? 3S plays just as well. May pd will find 4S. Requires consideration -------------------------------------------- S KQxxxxx H xx D xx C KQ 6/7 loser. Almost certain to have 3 losers but can they take 4. Some hands easy others a disaster. 4S surely crosses your mind - may well bid it but may tak the low road and see if pd can raise. ------------------------------------------------ S KJ8xxx H Qx D Axx C xx 8 loser. The 2 red cards are huge, but could still lose 2 clubs and 2 spades Pass, 3H ? 3S is surely as good. Opposite the actual dummy 4 is cold. 4S considered but 3S bid and maybe pd will find a raise ? ------------------------------------------------ S KQJxxx H Q D Qx C Jxxx 7 loser good spades, working red queens, club is worrysome. Easily lose 2S and 2+ clubs. On the other hand Opposite the actual hand 5 is cold. We punt 4S ? Maybe 3S better and maybe pd can find a raise ? ------------------------------------------------ S AKQJx H xx D Qxx C xxx 7 loser. If pd has 1 spade can draw trumps and should be able to get 5 red tricks 3NT is out no club stop. Red suit game possible but 4S certainly reasonable. try 3S and if pd has 2 may find a raise or are we forced to bid some game with 12 opposite 14/15 ? ------------------------------------------------------ S Jxxxxxx H Qx D A C Kxx 7 loser 3 spade losers probably on top - but that may be it for the defence. Could lose 4 spades or 3 + CA. Smooth 3S ? ----------------------------------------------------- S AQJxxx H x D Qx C Qxxx 6 loser - 2 spades one outside trick, probably the extent of it. Then again 2 club losers and 2 or even 3 spade losers is quite possible. Even a red ace with the defence could scupper the contract. 3NT .. communications look awkard prefer spades. Will consider 3NT. Will probably end up bidding 3S and maybe pd can do the right thing. ----------------------------------------------------- S Jxxxxxx H - D A C KTxxx 5 loser. 3Spades and a club loser well possible. Then again CAQ a mere 6 count + spade void and 4S is 36% at worse. one Spade with pd and we up to 62%. wouldnt even consider 4S ? ----------------------------------------------------- extreme example :- bidding judgement one S QJxxxxx H - D xx C Qxxx 1st off anyone passing 1H with this hand clearly hasnt a clue 8+ pts my foot. 2S weak or 3S pre-emptive do it no justice either. 1S planning to rebid spades at every stage or bid 4 if pd comes to life. 6/7 loser. CA, DA, any 2 spades + fill in the other 6/7 points makes 4S reasonable and worthy of consideration. Even 1 spade and alot of other distributions will make 4S. I'd consider and on occasion will bid 4S. Opposite the actual hand 4S has play (diamond lead Ace off side is the only lead to kill it straight off). Maybe better though to bid 3S and see can pd find a bid ? ----------------------------------------------------- Each of these hands given the prediciment the 3D has put you in, force you to weigh up the options. You cant weigh up options with a poor hand as you dont have any. With a weak/NF hand the system forces pass, 3H or 3S. Given this auction is going to be fairly frequent (5/4 14/15 count) the NF decisions should be well practiced and easy. The other hand types regardless of what the cause, inevidably cause a BIT (strain, no stopper, pass, 3H, 3NT, 3.5S) MUST indicate "more". Whatever "more" is makes bidding on easier. K. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 21 15:31:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl><001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl><003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl><004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000e01c96378$cf72c380$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Reformatted > > I'll be honest I didnt really understand your *3S 4S* query. Having > read your previous reply what you are looking for are 3.5 spade bids. > I thought you wanted a smooth 3S bid which differs to a slowish one by > 1 trick. Yes, I wanted to see 3,5S bids and this time the examples are much better. Nevertheless, in most cases 4S would be a stretch. Partner's typical hand for 3D is red miltonage, generally without 3 spades (with such hand he will raise anyway) and without strong clubs (he would rather bid 2NT instead of 3D). I concede that with some of this hands (see beneath) hesitation is possible but that's why I said that pass is more suggested than 4S, not that it's clearly suggested. > S Q8xxxxx > H x > D Ax > C Kxx > > 6 loser hand. Problem is may lose 3 trumps and aclub. May not. > opposite the actual hand its rigid. Would I consider 4 - yup. > Would the actual pair ? Not easy or clear cut requires consideration. It is a maximum 3S. With slightly better spades I would risk 4S at imps. Hesitation possible. > ----------------------------------------- > > S QJxxxxx > H - > D Ax > C Jxxx > > 6 loser hand again 2/3 spades and a club loser or even 2 club losers. > opposite the right hand S AK DK and club singleton could make 6 > Be nice to get pds input but 4S must be considered. Opposite the actual > hand cold. Normal 3S. SAK and club singleton? Sorry, partner will raise automaticly, no reason to think. 4S is cold against the actual hand, but that would be systemic lose. Usually you will lose 2-3 clubs and 2-3 spades. > -------------------------------------------- > > S AQJxxx > H Qx > D xx > C Jxx > > 8 loser hand 10 count. HQ could be huge. SK HAJxxx DAxxx CQ/Kxx easy 10 > tricks. Opposite wrong hand Sx HAKJxx DAQxx Cxxx might not even make 3S > 3H ? 3S plays just as well. May pd will find 4S. Requires consideration Another maximum 3S, despite many losers. With this hand I could think shortly about 3NT, but with Kx Axxxx AQxx Qx or similar hands partner shouldn't bid 3D, rather 2NT or flexible 2D. > -------------------------------------------- > > S KQxxxxx > H xx > D xx > C KQ > > 6/7 loser. Almost certain to have 3 losers but can they take 4. Some > hands easy others a disaster. 4S surely crosses your mind - may well bid it > but may tak the low road and see if pd can raise. That is 4S for me. > ------------------------------------------------ > > S KJ8xxx > H Qx > D Axx > C xx > > 8 loser. The 2 red cards are huge, but could still lose 2 clubs and 2 spades > Pass, 3H ? 3S is surely as good. Opposite the actual dummy 4 is cold. > 4S considered but 3S bid and maybe pd will find a raise ? 4S is not a possibility. You could lose 3-4 spades. That hand certainly merits hesitation, but the decision is between 3H, 4H, pass and 3S. I'd choose 3H. Another proof of inferior system. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > S KQJxxx > H Q > D Qx > C Jxxx > > 7 loser good spades, working red queens, club is worrysome. Easily lose 2S > and 2+ clubs. On the other hand Opposite the actual hand 5 is cold. We punt > 4S ? Maybe 3S better and maybe pd can find a raise ? Easy 3S. Queens are "working", but I would prefer one working K instead. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > S AKQJx > H xx > D Qxx > C xxx > > 7 loser. If pd has 1 spade can draw trumps and should be able to get > 5 red tricks > 3NT is out no club stop. Red suit game possible but 4S certainly reasonable. > try 3S and if pd has 2 may find a raise or are we forced to bid some game with > 12 opposite 14/15 ? This hand is certainly not 3S, although I would hesitate with it. 3NT looks like the best game, but it is wrong-handed. Nevertheless I would risk it, most of the time it should be at worst on 4-4 club split and I can easily induce LHO to lead diamonds. 4S and 4C (and later 4S, giving a choice between 5D and 4S) are also reasonable. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > S Jxxxxxx > H Qx > D A > C Kxx > > 7 loser 3 spade losers probably on top - but that may be it for the defence. > Could lose 4 spades or 3 + CA. Smooth 3S ? Difficult hand. With typical partner's hand x AKJxx KQxx(x) Jx(x) 3NT is good and that is what I would bid. But of course 4S and even 3S could be better. Hesitation probable, but 3S is for me a bad choice. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > S AQJxxx > H x > D Qx > C Qxxx > > 6 loser - 2 spades one outside trick, probably the extent of it. Then again > 2 club losers and 2 or even 3 spade losers is quite possible. Even a > red ace with > the defence could scupper the contract. 3NT .. communications look awkard > prefer spades. Will consider 3NT. Will probably end up bidding 3S and maybe > pd can do the right thing. Fine hand. Spade doubleton makes the game playable, but 1-3 in blacks is usually fatal. Hesitation probable. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > S Jxxxxxx > H - > D A > C KTxxx > 5 loser. 3Spades and a club loser well possible. Then again CAQ a mere 6 count > + spade void and 4S is 36% at worse. one Spade with pd and we up to 62%. > wouldnt even consider 4S ? Clear-cut 3S. You cannot count losers ignoring partner's bidding. It is quite probable that you won't be able to reach the table even once! > ----------------------------------------------------- > > extreme example :- bidding judgement one > > > S QJxxxxx > H - > D xx > C Qxxx > > 1st off anyone passing 1H with this hand clearly hasnt a clue 8+ pts my foot. > 2S weak or 3S pre-emptive do it no justice either. 1S planning to rebid spades > at every stage or bid 4 if pd comes to life. 6/7 loser. CA, DA, any 2 spades > + fill in the other 6/7 points makes 4S reasonable and worthy of consideration. > Even 1 spade and alot of other distributions will make 4S. > I'd consider and on occasion will bid 4S. Opposite the actual hand 4S > has play (diamond lead Ace off side is the only lead to kill it straight off). > Maybe better though to bid 3S and see can pd find a bid ? Sorry, this hand is normal 3S (if preemptive). You are still counting losers forgetting about partner's bidding. This hand is great after natural 1C opening, not after 1H. And after partner showed 9+ cards and many HCP in reds this hand is poor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > Each of these hands given the prediciment the 3D has put you in, force > you to weigh up the options. I counted 3,5 hesitations followed by 3S. Not much and the examples are hard thought. > You cant weigh up options with a poor > hand as you dont have any. "Poor" must be considered in the actual auction, not in vain. Counting losers at the second round of bidding is something different than at the beginning of the deal. > With a weak/NF hand the system forces > pass, 3H or 3S. Given this auction is going to be fairly frequent > (5/4 14/15 count) the NF decisions should be well practiced and easy. I don't think they bid 3D with any 5-4. Probably often they have 5-5, 5-4 only with good suits or control-rich hands. And still the decisions are not easy. > The other hand types regardless of what the cause, inevidably cause a BIT > (strain, no stopper, pass, 3H, 3NT, 3.5S) MUST indicate "more". Whatever > "more" is makes bidding on easier. I don't agree. But you know that. I wouldn't accept 3NT because that caters for more reasons of hesitation. 4S is too mono-directional. Try to accept that the mere fact of the length of our discussion makes 4S non-suggested. Of course the player in question doesn't have to be my or your peer, but that is something for the TD to decide and he should poll not only for LAs, but also for demonstrably suggested. He didn't and that is why I support AC, not him. If the results of the poll showed that for that player's peers 4S is demonstrably suggested, I would accept that as an AC member. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 21 15:31:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl><001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl><003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl><004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001401c9637a$1cb120a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Reformatted > > I'll be honest I didnt really understand your *3S 4S* query. Having > read your previous reply what you are looking for are 3.5 spade bids. > I thought you wanted a smooth 3S bid which differs to a slowish one by > 1 trick. Yes, I wanted to see 3,5S bids and this time the examples are much better. Nevertheless, in most cases 4S would be a stretch. Partner's typical hand for 3D is red miltonage, generally without 3 spades (with such hand he will raise anyway) and without strong clubs (he would rather bid 2NT instead of 3D). I concede that with some of this hands (see beneath) hesitation is possible but that's why I said that pass is more suggested than 4S, not that it's clearly suggested. > S Q8xxxxx > H x > D Ax > C Kxx > > 6 loser hand. Problem is may lose 3 trumps and aclub. May not. > opposite the actual hand its rigid. Would I consider 4 - yup. > Would the actual pair ? Not easy or clear cut requires consideration. It is a maximum 3S. With slightly better spades I would risk 4S at imps. Hesitation possible. > ----------------------------------------- > > S QJxxxxx > H - > D Ax > C Jxxx > > 6 loser hand again 2/3 spades and a club loser or even 2 club losers. > opposite the right hand S AK DK and club singleton could make 6 > Be nice to get pds input but 4S must be considered. Opposite the actual > hand cold. Normal 3S. SAK and club singleton? Sorry, partner will raise automaticly, no reason to think. 4S is cold against the actual hand, but that would be systemic lose. Usually you will lose 2-3 clubs and 2-3 spades. > -------------------------------------------- > > S AQJxxx > H Qx > D xx > C Jxx > > 8 loser hand 10 count. HQ could be huge. SK HAJxxx DAxxx CQ/Kxx easy 10 > tricks. Opposite wrong hand Sx HAKJxx DAQxx Cxxx might not even make 3S > 3H ? 3S plays just as well. May pd will find 4S. Requires consideration Another maximum 3S, despite many losers. With this hand I could think shortly about 3NT, but with Kx Axxxx AQxx Qx or similar hands partner shouldn't bid 3D, rather 2NT or flexible 2D. > -------------------------------------------- > > S KQxxxxx > H xx > D xx > C KQ > > 6/7 loser. Almost certain to have 3 losers but can they take 4. Some > hands easy others a disaster. 4S surely crosses your mind - may well bid it > but may tak the low road and see if pd can raise. That is 4S for me. > ------------------------------------------------ > > S KJ8xxx > H Qx > D Axx > C xx > > 8 loser. The 2 red cards are huge, but could still lose 2 clubs and 2 spades > Pass, 3H ? 3S is surely as good. Opposite the actual dummy 4 is cold. > 4S considered but 3S bid and maybe pd will find a raise ? 4S is not a possibility. You could lose 3-4 spades. That hand certainly merits hesitation, but the decision is between 3H, 4H, pass and 3S. I'd choose 3H. Another proof of inferior system. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > S KQJxxx > H Q > D Qx > C Jxxx > > 7 loser good spades, working red queens, club is worrysome. Easily lose 2S > and 2+ clubs. On the other hand Opposite the actual hand 5 is cold. We punt > 4S ? Maybe 3S better and maybe pd can find a raise ? Easy 3S. Queens are "working", but I would prefer one working K instead. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > S AKQJx > H xx > D Qxx > C xxx > > 7 loser. If pd has 1 spade can draw trumps and should be able to get > 5 red tricks > 3NT is out no club stop. Red suit game possible but 4S certainly reasonable. > try 3S and if pd has 2 may find a raise or are we forced to bid some game with > 12 opposite 14/15 ? This hand is certainly not 3S, although I would hesitate with it. 3NT looks like the best game, but it is wrong-handed. Nevertheless I would risk it, most of the time it should be at worst on 4-4 club split and I can easily induce LHO to lead diamonds. 4S and 4C (and later 4S, giving a choice between 5D and 4S) are also reasonable. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > S Jxxxxxx > H Qx > D A > C Kxx > > 7 loser 3 spade losers probably on top - but that may be it for the defence. > Could lose 4 spades or 3 + CA. Smooth 3S ? Difficult hand. With typical partner's hand x AKJxx KQxx(x) Jx(x) 3NT is good and that is what I would bid. But of course 4S and even 3S could be better. Hesitation probable, but 3S is for me a bad choice. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > S AQJxxx > H x > D Qx > C Qxxx > > 6 loser - 2 spades one outside trick, probably the extent of it. Then again > 2 club losers and 2 or even 3 spade losers is quite possible. Even a > red ace with > the defence could scupper the contract. 3NT .. communications look awkard > prefer spades. Will consider 3NT. Will probably end up bidding 3S and maybe > pd can do the right thing. Fine hand. Spade doubleton makes the game playable, but 1-3 in blacks is usually fatal. Hesitation probable. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > S Jxxxxxx > H - > D A > C KTxxx > 5 loser. 3Spades and a club loser well possible. Then again CAQ a mere 6 count > + spade void and 4S is 36% at worse. one Spade with pd and we up to 62%. > wouldnt even consider 4S ? Clear-cut 3S. You cannot count losers ignoring partner's bidding. It is quite probable that you won't be able to reach the table even once! > ----------------------------------------------------- > > extreme example :- bidding judgement one > > > S QJxxxxx > H - > D xx > C Qxxx > > 1st off anyone passing 1H with this hand clearly hasnt a clue 8+ pts my foot. > 2S weak or 3S pre-emptive do it no justice either. 1S planning to rebid spades > at every stage or bid 4 if pd comes to life. 6/7 loser. CA, DA, any 2 spades > + fill in the other 6/7 points makes 4S reasonable and worthy of consideration. > Even 1 spade and alot of other distributions will make 4S. > I'd consider and on occasion will bid 4S. Opposite the actual hand 4S > has play (diamond lead Ace off side is the only lead to kill it straight off). > Maybe better though to bid 3S and see can pd find a bid ? Sorry, this hand is normal 3S (if preemptive). You are still counting losers forgetting about partner's bidding. This hand is great after natural 1C opening, not after 1H. And after partner showed 9+ cards and many HCP in reds this hand is poor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > Each of these hands given the prediciment the 3D has put you in, force > you to weigh up the options. I counted 3,5 hesitations followed by 3S. Not much and the examples are hard thought. > You cant weigh up options with a poor > hand as you dont have any. "Poor" must be considered in the actual auction, not in vain. Counting losers at the second round of bidding is something different than at the beginning of the deal. > With a weak/NF hand the system forces > pass, 3H or 3S. Given this auction is going to be fairly frequent > (5/4 14/15 count) the NF decisions should be well practiced and easy. I don't think they bid 3D with any 5-4. Probably often they have 5-5, 5-4 only with good suits or control-rich hands. And still the decisions are not easy. > The other hand types regardless of what the cause, inevidably cause a BIT > (strain, no stopper, pass, 3H, 3NT, 3.5S) MUST indicate "more". Whatever > "more" is makes bidding on easier. I don't agree. But you know that. I wouldn't accept 3NT because that caters for more reasons of hesitation. 4S is too mono-directional. Try to accept that the mere fact of the length of our discussion makes 4S non-suggested. Of course the player in question doesn't have to be my or your peer, but that is something for the TD to decide and he should poll not only for LAs, but also for demonstrably suggested. He didn't and that is why I support AC, not him. If the results of the poll showed that for that player's peers 4S is demonstrably suggested, I would accept that as an AC member. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Dec 21 15:31:27 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <004401c95fb1$193f51c0$15844c59@chello.pl><001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl><003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl><004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001101c96379$432d3a80$15844c59@chello.pl> Hi, > Reformatted > > I'll be honest I didnt really understand your *3S 4S* query. Having > read your previous reply what you are looking for are 3.5 spade bids. > I thought you wanted a smooth 3S bid which differs to a slowish one by > 1 trick. Yes, I wanted to see 3,5S bids and this time the examples are much better. Nevertheless, in most cases 4S would be a stretch. Partner's typical hand for 3D is red miltonage, generally without 3 spades (with such hand he will raise anyway) and without strong clubs (he would rather bid 2NT instead of 3D). I concede that with some of this hands (see beneath) hesitation is possible but that's why I said that pass is more suggested than 4S, not that it's clearly suggested. > S Q8xxxxx > H x > D Ax > C Kxx > > 6 loser hand. Problem is may lose 3 trumps and aclub. May not. > opposite the actual hand its rigid. Would I consider 4 - yup. > Would the actual pair ? Not easy or clear cut requires consideration. It is a maximum 3S. With slightly better spades I would risk 4S at imps. Hesitation possible. > ----------------------------------------- > > S QJxxxxx > H - > D Ax > C Jxxx > > 6 loser hand again 2/3 spades and a club loser or even 2 club losers. > opposite the right hand S AK DK and club singleton could make 6 > Be nice to get pds input but 4S must be considered. Opposite the actual > hand cold. Normal 3S. SAK and club singleton? Sorry, partner will raise automaticly, no reason to think. 4S is cold against the actual hand, but that would be systemic lose. Usually you will lose 2-3 clubs and 2-3 spades. > -------------------------------------------- > > S AQJxxx > H Qx > D xx > C Jxx > > 8 loser hand 10 count. HQ could be huge. SK HAJxxx DAxxx CQ/Kxx easy 10 > tricks. Opposite wrong hand Sx HAKJxx DAQxx Cxxx might not even make 3S > 3H ? 3S plays just as well. May pd will find 4S. Requires consideration Another maximum 3S, despite many losers. With this hand I could think shortly about 3NT, but with Kx Axxxx AQxx Qx or similar hands partner shouldn't bid 3D, rather 2NT or flexible 2D. > -------------------------------------------- > > S KQxxxxx > H xx > D xx > C KQ > > 6/7 loser. Almost certain to have 3 losers but can they take 4. Some > hands easy others a disaster. 4S surely crosses your mind - may well bid it > but may tak the low road and see if pd can raise. That is 4S for me. > ------------------------------------------------ > > S KJ8xxx > H Qx > D Axx > C xx > > 8 loser. The 2 red cards are huge, but could still lose 2 clubs and 2 spades > Pass, 3H ? 3S is surely as good. Opposite the actual dummy 4 is cold. > 4S considered but 3S bid and maybe pd will find a raise ? 4S is not a possibility. You could lose 3-4 spades. That hand certainly merits hesitation, but the decision is between 3H, 4H, pass and 3S. I'd choose 3H. Another proof of inferior system. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > S KQJxxx > H Q > D Qx > C Jxxx > > 7 loser good spades, working red queens, club is worrysome. Easily lose 2S > and 2+ clubs. On the other hand Opposite the actual hand 5 is cold. We punt > 4S ? Maybe 3S better and maybe pd can find a raise ? Easy 3S. Queens are "working", but I would prefer one working K instead. > ------------------------------------------------ > > > S AKQJx > H xx > D Qxx > C xxx > > 7 loser. If pd has 1 spade can draw trumps and should be able to get > 5 red tricks > 3NT is out no club stop. Red suit game possible but 4S certainly reasonable. > try 3S and if pd has 2 may find a raise or are we forced to bid some game with > 12 opposite 14/15 ? This hand is certainly not 3S, although I would hesitate with it. 3NT looks like the best game, but it is wrong-handed. Nevertheless I would risk it, most of the time it should be at worst on 4-4 club split and I can easily induce LHO to lead diamonds. 4S and 4C (and later 4S, giving a choice between 5D and 4S) are also reasonable. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > S Jxxxxxx > H Qx > D A > C Kxx > > 7 loser 3 spade losers probably on top - but that may be it for the defence. > Could lose 4 spades or 3 + CA. Smooth 3S ? Difficult hand. With typical partner's hand x AKJxx KQxx(x) Jx(x) 3NT is good and that is what I would bid. But of course 4S and even 3S could be better. Hesitation probable, but 3S is for me a bad choice. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > S AQJxxx > H x > D Qx > C Qxxx > > 6 loser - 2 spades one outside trick, probably the extent of it. Then again > 2 club losers and 2 or even 3 spade losers is quite possible. Even a > red ace with > the defence could scupper the contract. 3NT .. communications look awkard > prefer spades. Will consider 3NT. Will probably end up bidding 3S and maybe > pd can do the right thing. Fine hand. Spade doubleton makes the game playable, but 1-3 in blacks is usually fatal. Hesitation probable. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > S Jxxxxxx > H - > D A > C KTxxx > 5 loser. 3Spades and a club loser well possible. Then again CAQ a mere 6 count > + spade void and 4S is 36% at worse. one Spade with pd and we up to 62%. > wouldnt even consider 4S ? Clear-cut 3S. You cannot count losers ignoring partner's bidding. It is quite probable that you won't be able to reach the table even once! > ----------------------------------------------------- > > extreme example :- bidding judgement one > > > S QJxxxxx > H - > D xx > C Qxxx > > 1st off anyone passing 1H with this hand clearly hasnt a clue 8+ pts my foot. > 2S weak or 3S pre-emptive do it no justice either. 1S planning to rebid spades > at every stage or bid 4 if pd comes to life. 6/7 loser. CA, DA, any 2 spades > + fill in the other 6/7 points makes 4S reasonable and worthy of consideration. > Even 1 spade and alot of other distributions will make 4S. > I'd consider and on occasion will bid 4S. Opposite the actual hand 4S > has play (diamond lead Ace off side is the only lead to kill it straight off). > Maybe better though to bid 3S and see can pd find a bid ? Sorry, this hand is normal 3S (if preemptive). You are still counting losers forgetting about partner's bidding. This hand is great after natural 1C opening, not after 1H. And after partner showed 9+ cards and many HCP in reds this hand is poor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > Each of these hands given the prediciment the 3D has put you in, force > you to weigh up the options. I counted 3,5 hesitations followed by 3S. Not much and the examples are hard thought. > You cant weigh up options with a poor > hand as you dont have any. "Poor" must be considered in the actual auction, not in vain. Counting losers at the second round of bidding is something different than at the beginning of the deal. > With a weak/NF hand the system forces > pass, 3H or 3S. Given this auction is going to be fairly frequent > (5/4 14/15 count) the NF decisions should be well practiced and easy. I don't think they bid 3D with any 5-4. Probably often they have 5-5, 5-4 only with good suits or control-rich hands. And still the decisions are not easy. > The other hand types regardless of what the cause, inevidably cause a BIT > (strain, no stopper, pass, 3H, 3NT, 3.5S) MUST indicate "more". Whatever > "more" is makes bidding on easier. I don't agree. But you know that. I wouldn't accept 3NT because that caters for more reasons of hesitation. 4S is too mono-directional. Try to accept that the mere fact of the length of our discussion makes 4S non-suggested. Of course the player in question doesn't have to be my or your peer, but that is something for the TD to decide and he should poll not only for LAs, but also for demonstrably suggested. He didn't and that is why I support AC, not him. If the results of the poll showed that for that player's peers 4S is demonstrably suggested, I would accept that as an AC member. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 02:23:47 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:23:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Alerting doubles [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c961ae$553fad10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ As I look around for evidence of the love of humankind for its fellows..... http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/21/2452173.htm Social welfare groups have welcomed the Federal Government's strategy to deal with the ever-increasing numbers of homeless Australians, many of whom sleep rough on the streets and in parks. About 100,000 people are classified as homeless across the nation, with 16,000 of those sleeping rough on the streets. Today the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, announced details of the Government's white paper on homelessness during a visit to a men's homeless shelter in Sydney. Mr Rudd says the Government plans to halve the number of people affected by homelessness over the next decade. By 2020, the Government has committed to building 50,000 affordable rental homes for low and moderate income earners, and about 3,000 homes for people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness. Mr Rudd announced an extra $1.2 billion, over four years, to build new housing and increasing services to prevent homelessness. The $1.2 billion is on top of the $6 billion in base funding already committed. Richard Hills, first post: And where does the word "question" appear in Law 40B6(b)? If the opponents score a top because of "crucial" decision caused by a concealed partnership understanding for which there was no reasonable way of unconcealing, Law 40B6(b) still applies. Grattan Endicott, part one: +=+ Having been inattentive to this topic I have not followed what is going on in the case. However, my suspicions are aroused by Richard's last assertion. The law [Law 40B6(b)] reads: "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." [Part two of Grattan below] David Burn, first post: That is all very well, but what about information not given in a non-explanation? I have already quoted this example: West 2C (Polish; 5+ clubs, 11-15 or so) North Pass East 2D (artificial relay) South 2H (hearts) West Double Now, almost everyone outside Poland and 99% of players inside Poland plays that double as hearts (a penalty double). In fact, it denied hearts but showed willingness to defend if East had hearts (a truly unusual double). But there was no method by which East could inform North of this - indeed, he was expressly forbidden by Polish regulations to do so. In Poland, I presume that a knowledgeable North would be permitted to ask about the double without risking being considered to have transmitted UI (otherwise the Polish regulations really are very stupid indeed). But this did not take place in Poland - it took place in Italy, and North- South were not Polish but English. One of two things might have happened: North, believing double to be penalty, might either run from 2H doubled (with short hearts) or not compete to 3H (with long hearts) to the detriment of his side; or South, left in 2H doubled, might misplay through believing that West rather than East had length in trumps. What redress would be given in Poland to North-South in such circumstances? What redress should be given in Italy to a pair of Englishmen? Alain Gottcheiner, non-Burnian bidding theory: I would call this an 'action double'. I've got a good overall hand, with tops, and you may leave it in with hearts. And that's the most logical meaning of the double. David Burn, second post, part one: Of course it isn't. One of the functions of a 2D relay after a Precision or Polish style 2C opening is to ask for a four- card major. When fourth hand bids a major, the logical thing for opener to do if he has that major is to double, to express the opinion that the contract will not make. Why is it "logical" for the hand sitting over the trumps to double in order to invite the hand sitting under the trumps to pass with length? The trouble with this kind of discussion is that the Laws of bridge and the accompanying regulations are for all bridge players, not some tiny minority who play 25 different kinds of double, none of them penalty and (if the above contribution is anything to go by) most of them stupid. [Part two of DALB below] Grattan Endicott, part two: My question. Was there an explanation in which the information should/could have been given and was not? Supplementary question: If 'no' was there a violation of the disclosure regulations (see Law 40B4)? ~Grattan ~ +=+ 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, second post, part one: The caveat "as these laws require" seems to me to limit the scope Law 40B4 would otherwise have had. Law 40B1(a), second sentence: "A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament. Richard Hills, second post, part two: If it is the "opinion" of the RA that obscure doubles are not SPUs, because all 25 possible non-penalty doubles may be readily understood and anticipated, and therefore the RA rules that doubles must not be Alerted, then there is no Law 40B4 redress for a player whose "opinion" differs from that of the RA. David Burn, second post, part two: It is obviously in the interests of people who play obscure doubles that they should not be alerted. It is not in the interests of anyone else. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 22 05:25:59 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 15:25:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c961cf$225fd480$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Imps Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C (1) Pass 1S (1) Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2H (1) Pass 2S (1) Pass 3D (1) ? (1) Alert! You, South, hold: 432 432 KJT9 432 Do you: (a) ask for an explanation of the auction? or (b) choose a lead-directing double in case West plays 3NT or 5C? or (c) choose a lead-directing double in case West plays 6C or 6NT? or (d) none of the above? or (e) some of the above (specify)? or (f) all of the above, and who shaves the Spanish barber? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 22 05:44:22 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:44:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000501c963ef$f66641c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Hola, no intro or outro this time? Pre-Christmas lack of time? ;-) > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C (1) Pass 1S (1) Pass > 1NT(1) Pass 2H (1) Pass > 2S (1) Pass 3D (1) ? > > (1) Alert! > > You, South, hold: > > 432 > 432 > KJT9 > 432 > > Do you: > > (a) ask for an explanation of the auction? I assume I have a basic idea what the opponents' system is. If artificial and unknown to me I would check the SC before the play and now I would probably ask about everything at my turn. If artificial but generally known to me I would ask only about calls that may have different meanings. If natural... Ok, with all the Alerts we may omit it. I snip the rest because I cannot make a decision without the full knowledge. I'd bet that 1C is strong and the rest is a relay auction. If it is clear from the answers that W cannot have more than 3 diamonds (rather 2) and nothing would suggest E is looking for them I could (but not necessairly would) risk double. Otherwise not, relayer may choose playing 3Dxx knowing his partner's shape. Regards Maciej From jrhind at therock.bm Mon Dec 22 05:52:03 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 21:52:03 -0700 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I choose (d) none of the above. I don't want to give away any information on this hand. To me, this auction looks suspiciously like a Precision sequence where East is showing 4 controls and a spade suit headed by 2 of the top three honours. I expect West to have the missing diamond honours. Merry Christmas to all. Jack On 12/21/08 9:25 PM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" wrote: > Imps > Dlr: West > Vul: All > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C (1) Pass 1S (1) Pass > 1NT(1) Pass 2H (1) Pass > 2S (1) Pass 3D (1) ? > > (1) Alert! > > You, South, hold: > > 432 > 432 > KJT9 > 432 > > Do you: > > (a) ask for an explanation of the auction? > > or > > (b) choose a lead-directing double in case West plays 3NT or 5C? > > or > > (c) choose a lead-directing double in case West plays 6C or 6NT? > > or > > (d) none of the above? > > or > > (e) some of the above (specify)? > > or > > (f) all of the above, and who shaves the Spanish barber? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or > other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended > recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under > the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Dec 22 06:23:48 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:23:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701c961cf$225fd480$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081222162132.01e3f0a8@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 03:25 PM 22/12/2008, you wrote: >Imps >Dlr: West >Vul: All > >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C (1) Pass 1S (1) Pass >1NT(1) Pass 2H (1) Pass >2S (1) Pass 3D (1) ? > >(1) Alert! > >You, South, hold: > >432 >432 >KJT9 >432 > >Do you: > >(a) ask for an explanation of the auction? I would have asked politely after 2H. They are doing so much alerting they are usually only too happy to give a full and frank discussion of Symmetric Relay and I am getting bored wondering how much longer before we are there it is my go Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From dalburn at btopenworld.com Mon Dec 22 07:23:08 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:23:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000701c961cf$225fd480$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000801c963fd$c2789d50$4769d7f0$@com> [RH] Imps Dlr: West Vul: All The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C (1) Pass 1S (1) Pass 1NT(1) Pass 2H (1) Pass 2S (1) Pass 3D (1) ? (1) Alert! You, South, hold: 432 432 KJT9 432 Would have asked over 1S, as anyone would. Would also have asked over 2H, as anyone would. It will come as no surprise that I would also have asked over 3D. What? You would not have perked up until 3D? Your country has some mad regulation that you can't ask about 1S or 2H because you would have passed in any case? Evolve. Or failing that, emigrate (but not to my country, which is ruled by madmen). David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 07:38:10 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:38:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000501c963ef$f66641c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: >Hola, no intro or outro this time? Pre-Christmas lack of time? ;-) >From the book Too Many Songs by Tom Lehrer, with Not Enough Drawings by Ronald Searle, I give you Tom Lehrer's Christmas Carol, third verse: Relations, sparing no expense, 'll Send some useless old utensil, Or a matching pen and pencil. ("Just the thing I need! How nice!") It doesn't matter how sincere it Is, nor how heartfelt the spirit, Sentiment will not endear it, What's important is the price. Jack Rhind: >I choose (d) none of the above. I don't want to give away any >information on this hand. To me, this auction looks suspiciously >like a Precision sequence where East is showing 4 controls and a >spade suit headed by 2 of the top three honours. I expect West >to have the missing diamond honours. > >Merry Christmas to all. Richard Hills: Give the man a matching pen and pencil! The right answer for the wrong reason, as explained by Tony Musgrove: >I would have asked politely after 2H. They are doing so much >alerting they are usually only too happy to give a full and >frank discussion of Symmetric Relay and I am getting bored >wondering how much longer before we are there... Richard Hills: Bingo! The explanation would have been -> 1C = 15+ hcp, any shape, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1)* 1S = 8+ hcp, 4+ spades, 3- hearts, 2+ controls* 1NT = relay 2H = exactly 4 spades, 5+ diamonds * Singleton kings not counted So knowing that East holds 5+ diamonds means that a diamond lead is less likely to defeat 3NT, while doubling 3D for the opening lead against 5C might backfire because Maciej Bystry: >...relayer may choose playing 3Dxx knowing his partner's shape. Richard Hills: Which is exactly what happened at the table. South ethically refused to make a lead-directing question, instead going for the lead-directing double with no prior question. West held the other four diamonds, so Hashmat Ali made 3Dxx with a vulnerable overtrick for the flashy teams score of +1240. But South was no bunny. She was a highly expert international player (strong enough to represent Australia not just in our Women's Team, but also in our Open Team), so she was not foolish enough to adopt the strategy recommended by Maciej Bystry: >I would probably ask about everything at my turn. Law 90B2: "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant." Richard Hills: Here the Law 90B2 time-saving strategy of delaying a question about a relay sequence until the end of the auction backfired. But the key issue is that this auction took place a few years ago, under the 1997 Lawbook. If the 3Dxx debacle had taken place under the 2007 Lawbook, would South have redress under a clause of Law 40? Or perhaps redress under Law 12A1: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B or on his own initiative the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes: The Director may award an adjusted score when he judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non-offending contestant for the particular type of violation committed by an opponent." Richard Hills: Is it a violation to play a relay system which is intrinsically too complex for disclosure "before commencing play", Law 40A1(b)? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 22 08:11:28 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:11:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000701c961cf$225fd480$15844c59@chello.pl> <000801c963fd$c2789d50$4769d7f0$@com> Message-ID: <000901c96404$82b33840$15844c59@chello.pl> > Would have asked over 1S, as anyone would. Would also have asked over 2H, as > anyone would. It will come as no surprise that I would also have asked over > 3D. > > What? You would not have perked up until 3D? Your country has some mad > regulation that you can't ask about 1S or 2H because you would have passed > in any case? Evolve. Or failing that, emigrate (but not to my country, which > is ruled by madmen). Funny, just after sending my response the thought of poor Englishmen haunted my mind. To double or not to double, that is a question. At least your Bard foreseen this dilemma. New generations already know the answer - to ask and to pass, what can be better? Or is it only Mr. Hyde, cheat of the worst order, writing instead of me? Leave this crazy island David, come to Poland (you will slightly balance recent trends). I doubt that you will appreciate our national habits, but you will certainly learn how to cope with untypical, unalerted doubles without pre-alerts and SCs to help you ;-) > David Burn > London, England Merry Christmas Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 22 08:37:25 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:37:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000f01c96408$22db8ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Richard Hills: > > But South was no bunny. She was a highly expert international > player (strong enough to represent Australia not just in our > Women's Team, but also in our Open Team), so she was not foolish > enough to adopt the strategy recommended by I was playing against our best women pair last year in the Second Division... Of course I don't suggest anything, Polish SD is quite strong provided that players like Marcin Lesniewski or Jacek Pszczola were the members of the SD team last year (suprisingly they managed to achieve promotion). Nevertheless... > Maciej Bystry: > > >I would probably ask about everything at my turn. > > Law 90B2: > > "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural > penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): > unduly slow play by a contestant." May I mildly suggest that asking and receiving the answers as you presented them wouldn't be necessarily regarded as an "unduly slow play"? For my exonaration I may only say that I usually end 15-minute round after 7-10 minutes, so there is a chance the delay caused by my insidious questioning would be catched up. Nevertheless I understand the problem, women are usually more careful, deliberate and thoughtful when choosing their alternatives... > Richard Hills: > > Is it a violation to play a relay system which is intrinsically > too complex for disclosure "before commencing play", Law 40A1(b)? I'm in an awe of your imagination. It terrifies me that in case of Herman having the same ability to "interpret" the laws as you, we would have to cope now with the dWS 26 or so. And that is not a gift I wish to get from the Santa Claus ;-) Merry Christmas, especially to Herman and all women who may suspect that I'm a sworn male chauvinist - that is not true (at least not whole true ;-)), I was just exposing my skewed humour Maciej From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Dec 22 15:29:39 2008 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 14:29:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? In-Reply-To: <001401c9637a$1cb120a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl> <003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl> <004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl> <001401c9637a$1cb120a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Ok so there are 3.5S bids. Now if I reverse roles, can you give me hands where you have to decide between pass/3H and yet end up bidding 3S which takes 10+ secs (infact longer 15-20+ sec as the 3D is a stop bid) to decide ? These are the only real issues ... If they are easy and imo they are, then any BIT cant suggest a minimum hand but a hand which is thinking about "something" above 3S, but cant express it. In the examples I gave only 1 hand was a clear 4S bid for you but each of them had potential for more and opposite the actual hand infact game was on. That potential versus a "No pd I want to sign off in 3S hand", given the dreadful lack of space inflicted by the system (unless you are super human) invariably requires thought and will cause a pause possibly not 10 secs but easily 6+. If you are in an established partnership (and they are. years together) and have been through the mill on these types of auction any pause can be very significant. > Another maximum 3S, despite many losers. With this hand I could think > shortly about 3NT, but with Kx Axxxx AQxx Qx or similar hands partner > shouldn't bid 3D, rather 2NT or flexible 2D. +++ well maybe the AC should have done a better job and enquired. The impression I got was 3D shows a maximum (ie) 14/15 and at least 9+ red cards. The emphasise was on the hcp range and shape, not the remaining distribution in the black suits (though 3 card spade support must be excluded ). I have no idea what 2NT means. Maybe 14/15 5332 shape. >> S KQxxxxx >> H xx >> D xx >> C KQ +++ This hand is a 3S bid over a 2D bid. The CKQ while they look good are infact wasted - this is a much weaker hand than it appears. Consider what you need to make 4S. Need 1 spade for sure, probably 2. Pd has to cover all the red suit losers so AK AK that leaves no CA. If he has the CA as per the actual hand then a red suit lead thru the K (actual hand a diamond lead) will kill the contract straight away. So 4S is actually quite risky. I'd be sure of 3 losers and it doesnt take much for a 4th. This hand would cause me alot of problems. In the end I think I'd bid 4S NOT because I feel its right but because I'd have taken alot of time thinking about it 10+ secs easily and bidding 3S would now put pd under severe pressure. Then again I tend to think ahead. I would have taken my time at 1S and said if pd bids blah what will i respond (which is again why I cant understand the big tank and 3S. If 3S was forcing what was the problem on the hand?). >> ------------------------------------------------ >> S KQJxxx >> H Q >> D Qx >> C Jxxx >> > > Easy 3S. Queens are "working", but I would prefer one working K instead. +++ must say surprised. I thought this would be the 4S bid. Peoples optimism overrides their caution. With pd bidding the reds the Q's will turn into K's and the "hope" of club shortage will go up. I'd say be quite a few hopeful 4Sers. Wrong of course - you want to bid an invitational 3S but you cant. This hand versus S AQJ8x Hx Dx Cxxxxxx are miles apart with the same bid for both. I suspect quite a few would be in an agonized tank on this. >> S Jxxxxxx >> H - >> D A >> C KTxxx > > Clear-cut 3S. You cannot count losers ignoring partner's bidding. It is > quite probable that you won't be able to reach the table even once! +++ I think "cannot" needs to be replaced by "should not". Sure Pd's points *should* be in the reds. The actual hand they weren't had a big CA outside. Even if they are, you would need HAKQ + DKQ almost precisely to leave nothing outside. This is pretty specific, especially considering how 3D doesnt appear to be overly concerned with where these points are. I think quite a few bidders will tank to consider the odds and some will even bid it. 4S is the only game with any chance. Losing trick count players will see 5 opposite 6/7 and will be loathe to bid 3S NF. You maybe surprised in reality how unclear 3S is. K. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Dec 22 16:18:55 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:18:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] ACBL interprets L27 Message-ID: <53505A5E-D5BA-4464-90E7-4698F1A36A7B@starpower.net> The ACBL has just published (The Bridge Bulletin, December issue, "Ruling the Game" by Mike Flader) its first guidance with respect to the new L27. For those of us in North America, they have settled several ambiguities (including by far the most troublesome one, which this forum discussed at some length without reaching consensus) raised by the addition of L27B1(b). The "meaning" of the insufficient bid is determined solely by the intention of the bidder at the time he made the IB. The TD is specifically instructed to take the IBer away from the table to make this determination "so as not to create UI for the other three players". That means that whatever other "potential meanings of the IB" might exist are explicitly *not* to be taken into account when applying L27B1. The "UI" in the above, however, refers only to incidental UI that may arise during the discussion. Mr. Flader writes, "This law requires the director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." So those two findings are not only AI to the table, but must be provided by the TD. In addition, Mr. Flader writes, "When these insufficient situations arise, player's [sic] should ask the director what options are available to him." That settles the question of whether a player is "entitled" to ask the director what options are available to him. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Dec 22 22:25:29 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:25:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c963fd$c2789d50$4769d7f0$@com> Message-ID: Tobias Smollett (1721-1771): "I think for my part one half of the nation is mad -- and the other not very sound." David Burn: >Would have asked over 1S, as anyone would. Would also have >asked over 2H, as anyone would. It will come as no surprise >that I would also have asked over 3D. > >What? You would not have perked up until 3D? Your country >has some mad regulation that you can't ask about 1S or 2H >because you would have passed in any case? Evolve. Or >failing that, emigrate (but not to my country, which is >ruled by madmen). EBU Orange Book, clause 3E1: "A player has the right to ask questions at her turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player's action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question. In particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, she has shown an interest in taking some other action had the player received a different answer. Asking about a call which has not been alerted may cause more problems than asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player's turn to call, she does not need to have a call explained, it is in her interests to defer all questions until either she is about to make the opening lead or her partner's lead is face-down on the table." Richard Hills: The basis for this non-Burnian EBU regulation is presumably the following two clauses of Law 73. Law 73D2: "A player may not attempt to mislead an opponent by means of remark or gesture, by the haste or hesitancy of a call or play (as in hesitating before playing a singleton), the manner in which a call or play is made or by any purposeful deviation from correct procedure." Law 73F: "When a violation of the Proprieties described in this law results in damage to an innocent opponent, if the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference from a remark, manner, tempo, or the like, of an opponent who has no demonstrable bridge reason for the action, and who could have known, at the time of the action, that the action could work to his benefit, the Director shall award an adjusted score (see Law 12C)." Richard Hills: Can a question which is otherwise Lawful (e.g. the question does not infract Law 20G1) become an unLawful "remark"??? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 23 00:28:52 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:28:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c96408$22db8ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Is it a violation to play a relay system which is >>intrinsically too complex for disclosure "before commencing >>play", Law 40A1(b)? Maciej Bystry: >I'm in an awe of your imagination. It terrifies me that in case >of Herman having the same ability to "interpret" the laws as >you, we would have to cope now with the dWS 26 or so. And that >is not a gift I wish to get from the Santa Claus ;-) Konrad Adenauer, first Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany: "A thick skin is a gift from God." ABF Alert Regulations, first two sentences: "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents." Richard Hills: Is it an essential principle? What Law says so? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 23 01:39:05 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 11:39:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Law Book should be complete [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 13F - Surplus Card "Any surplus card not part of the deal is removed if found. The auction and play continue unaffected. If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded." Mike Amos, 20th September 2008, extracts: ..... The first sentence is very clear. Even I can do that (well ok I admit it will be easy if 52 have blue backs and 1 a red back but think about situations where its not so clear). Move on. The auction and play continue unaffected. That really doesn't work too well does it? In my scenario, the six of Spades was removed from the quitted tricks, but???? What next, should they go on with 8,8,8,9 cards? or whatever? How is this normal? In a draft version the Law had this addition ..... But without the reference to Law 67 can the TD really apply the defective trick approach? Max Bavin has suggested to me that this is not an option. Law 13F offers us one and only one option. "If such a card is found to have been played to a quitted trick an adjusted score may be awarded." I have no idea what this means. Should I rule as if the surplus card wasn't there? Should I rule as if there has been a defective trick? Artificial? Adjusted? What is sure is the Law makers don't know either...... and that makes me mad. They have been messing about for ten years and frankly I see no progress, just more mess and confusion. ..... Grattan Endicott, 22nd September 2008: +=+ I note that a statement about Law 13F is already among items to be discussed in Beijing. So it would be foolish if I were to try to anticipate what we might derive from that discussion or from the wider discussion as to the contents of an appendix. On the part of Mike's rant quoted above I must restrict myself for now to two comments. First as to an adjusted score; the Director will refer, of course, to Law 12. As to the nature of such an adjusted score the determinants are in 12C1(a) and 12C2(a). Second, a question to be resolved is whether when a card that is not part of the pack has been removed the Director should examine what has transpired with the unadulterated pack - should he consider, perhaps, whether he can rectify matters by application to this of Laws 13A through E? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008: "In Law 13F, the use of 'may be awarded' reflects the intentions of the Committee. It is inappropriate to refer in any case to Law 67. Note also that when the surplus card is found to have been played and an adjusted score is awarded any player who was dealt a correct number of cards, with no two cards identical, is in no way at fault." Merry Christmas Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 23 03:52:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:52:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael, 19th November 2008: Another one from the Honour Division (this time I was the TD). During this competition, matches of 16 boards are played in 4 matches. Every board is duplicated twice, and the boards circle in the open and closed room respectively. During its second outing in the open room, board 10 gets fouled. At the next two tables it is played with the strong hands NS, not EW. These two tables play 3NT+1 and 4S=. For this fourth match the comparison is 620 to both pairs of the same team. Board cancelled, and the Belgian regulations do not award +3 IMPs to both teams. However, in the third match, the result at the other table was 4S-1, due to a combination of an inferior selection of game plan and inspired defence. All the other tables make 4S=. Now here we have a non-offending side, who have scored a good score at the other table, with the result at the other table being fouled. Applying L86D, I felt they deserved 11 IMPs on the board (7/8th of a 12 IMP swing, rounded up), and I awarded them that. However, the other side was non-offending as well. Yet I felt no law compelled me to adjust for them downwards. So in the end the match score was 22-10 (reduced to 21-9 for time penalties, but that's another matter). Do you agree? What sort of regulations should be written to deal with things like this? For that matter, let's suppose that the fouled board is played at more tables than just the two - why should we disregard the score of +630? I did investigate and give the appropriate penalties to the table that fouled the board, of course. Law 86D - Result Obtained at Other Table In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side). * if commenced between the same two contestants at another table the board may be completed WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008: Law 86D - if an offending side is responsible for the inability of the second table to play the board it shall not be allowed to profit from its own favourable score on the first table. The parenthetical statement at the end of this law applies in the particular circumstances that one side is offending and the other not; in all other circumstances the core law applies, disregarding the parenthetical statement. It is possible there are two non-offending sides. When considering application of Law 86D a "favourable" score refers to an unlikely result. The unlikely result taken into account may favour either a non-offending side or an offending side and, except as stated above, it lies within the discretionary powers of the Director to decide upon the application of this law. WBF Laws Committee Chairman Ton Kooijman, unofficial rider, October 2008: [Rider: The concept suggested by the Chairman subsequent to the meeting is that when the side receiving a bad score at table A causes the irregularity by which the board cannot be played at the other table, the TD takes this score into account with full weight to assign an adjusted score. When the side receiving an unusual good score at table A causes at that table an irregularity by which the board cannot be played at the other table, if the TD decides to award an assigned adjusted score the weight given to that good result should be limited although it may play some part in the adjustment. If the board cannot be played because a side at that table causes an irregularity and there is an unusual good result at the other table there is a good reason to give an assigned adjusted score, giving full weight if the side with that good score is innocent and less than the full weight (perhaps 50%) if the side with that good score committed the irregularity. When there is an unusual good score at one table and at the other table the board cannot be played, with no player responsible, it is felt a weight of something like 60% may be appropriate.] Merry Christmas Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Dec 23 05:47:38 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:47:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Belgian Ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Richard Hills writes: > Herman De Wael, 19th November 2008: > > Another one from the Honour Division (this time I was the TD). > > During this competition, matches of 16 boards are played in 4 matches. > Every board is duplicated twice, and the boards circle in the open and > closed room respectively. > > During its second outing in the open room, board 10 gets fouled. At the > next two tables it is played with the strong hands NS, not EW. These two > tables play 3NT+1 and 4S=. For this fourth match the comparison is 620 > to both pairs of the same team. Board cancelled, and the Belgian > regulations do not award +3 IMPs to both teams. > However, in the third match, the result at the other table was 4S-1, due > to a combination of an inferior selection of game plan and inspired > defence. All the other tables make 4S=. > > Now here we have a non-offending side, who have scored a good score at > the other table, with the result at the other table being fouled. > Applying L86D, I felt they deserved 11 IMPs on the board (7/8th of a 12 > IMP swing, rounded up), and I awarded them that. > However, the other side was non-offending as well. Yet I felt no law > compelled me to adjust for them downwards. So in the end the match score > was 22-10 (reduced to 21-9 for time penalties, but that's another > matter). > Do you agree? What sort of regulations should be written to deal with > things like this? > For that matter, let's suppose that the fouled board is played at more > tables than just the two - why should we disregard the score of +630? You could create a rule like the one which is used for fouls in board-a-match. If two competing teams play a board in different forms, match-point both teams against everyone else who played the same board. If one team totals over 120%, it wins the board and the other team loses; if both are between 80% and 120%, the board is halved. At IMPs, you could cross-IMP or Butler score unmatched results, but if you do, the scores must balance. The +100 would be cross-IMPed against everyone else, and with most of the other pairs -620, the score would be +12 for them, -12 for the opposition. However, I wouldn't advise doing this unless it is spelled out in the Conditions of Contest. You would do the same for the two tables playing the fouled version of the board, scoring them against each other. > I did investigate and give the appropriate penalties to the table that > fouled the board, of course. > > Law 86D - Result Obtained at Other Table > > In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any > award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been > obtained* between the same contestants at another table, the Director may > assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when > that result appears favourable to the non-offending side). This should apply only when there is one non-offending side, not two. Here, there were two tables with no valid comparison, and the board should be scored as fouled. In team play, a foul is normally thrown out rather than +3 to both sides. > WBF Laws Committee Chairman Ton Kooijman, unofficial rider, October 2008: > When there is an unusual good score at one table and at the other table > the board cannot be played, with no player responsible, it is felt a > weight of something like 60% may be appropriate.] This creates a difficult judgment ruling for fouled boards. If N-S miss a cold slam and the board is fouled by a third party, do you score -3/+3, or do you have to first determine whether N-S should have reached the slam? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 23 07:09:55 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 06:09:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Belgian Ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002901c964c5$7c01afb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Belgian Ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> WBF Laws Committee Chairman Ton Kooijman, unofficial rider, October 2008: >> When there is an unusual good score at one table and at the other table >> the board cannot be played, with no player responsible, it is felt a >> weight of something like 60% may be appropriate.] > > This creates a difficult judgment ruling for fouled boards. If N-S miss a > cold > slam and the board is fouled by a third party, do you score -3/+3, or do > you > have to first determine whether N-S should have reached the slam? > +=+ It should be noted that the rider is a personal opinion expressed by Ton. Some members of the Laws Committee disagree with it, for which reason the Executive referred it back to the Laws Committee and it is due to be further considered at its next meeting (presumptively in Brazil in 2009). In the meantime it does not represent committee guidance. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 07:26:42 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:26:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] Belgian Ruling [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lord Montgomery (1887-1976), British field marshal: "Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'." David Grabiner: >You could create a rule like the one which is used for fouls in board-a- >match. If two competing teams play a board in different forms, match- >point both teams against everyone else who played the same board. If >one team totals over 120%, it wins the board and the other team loses; >if both are between 80% and 120%, the board is halved. Richard Hills: Such a Law 87B rule for fouled boards in board-a-match is legal, but seems to me to be unwise. The winning strategy for board-a-match is almost totally dissimilar to the winning strategy for matchpoint pairs. But this fouled board regulation rewards the team which was erroneously shooting for a top in what was supposed to be only a two horse race. David Grabiner: >At IMPs, you could cross-IMP or Butler score unmatched results, but if >you do, the scores must balance. The +100 would be cross-IMPed against >everyone else, and with most of the other pairs -620, the score would be >+12 for them, -12 for the opposition. However, I wouldn't advise doing >this unless it is spelled out in the Conditions of Contest. You would >do the same for the two tables playing the fouled version of the board, >scoring them against each other. Richard Hills: Again a Law 78D Condition of Contest which assumes that imped teams is identical to cross-imped Butler pairs is most unwise. Everybody knows from the textbooks that the break-even point for bidding a vulnerable game at imped teams is 37.5%. But very few know that the break-even point for bidding a vulnerable game at cross-imped Butler pairs is significantly smaller, circa 33%. (The figure of circa 33% also applies to Butler pairs scored against a datum.) And why should the result of a knockout match be affected by the random fact of a preponderance of sponsors sitting East-West in other knockout matches, thus making it harder for North-South to pick up cross-imps for their fouled board, despite their _actual_ East-West team-mates being of a world champion Meckwellian standard? Basically my argument is that, if a fouled board cannot be recovered using the method of scoring in use, switching to a different method of scoring is inappropriate. Jeff Rubens used a similar argument against hybrid teams events, 50% board-a-match and 50% imps (such as the Pachabo Cup), because it was impossible to select a winning strategy. Merry Christmas Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From blml at dybdal.dk Tue Dec 23 12:39:05 2008 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:39:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <71h1l45uhkbg6v75mj9nm1sln49qvliv3t@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:20:21 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: >This leaves the question what we should do with the list: > >1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. If this becomes the chosen solution, I don't think getting a few cents from each subscriber is realistic. I think the solution suggested by Richard Willey (letting volunteers donate a year or two at a time) will work much better, and I would be happy to make such a donation. >2. Find another volunteer with resources to host this. If this solution is chosen, I might possibly be willing to be the volunteer. I have a home server that runs Postfix, Apache, and BIND. So if I installed Mailman (which I have no experience with) and received a copy of relevant configuration files and the message archives from Henk, BLML could probably continue to work exactly as it has done until now (except that blml at amsterdamned.org would not be the address to send to). There are various limitations and other aspects which would need consideration before such a choice could be made: * My Internet connection has an outgoing bandwidth of only 768 kbps. That should be ample for the mail messages, except that my own use of the connection may become slow whenever a message goes out to all subscribers. I would want to experiment with sending one or a few test messages to all the subscribers directly from my server to see how, and for how long, it affects the machine and the connection. I would also like to know how much outgoing http-bandwidth the message archives generate (not a lot, I guess, but it would be nice to know). * Uptime: The server is a simple pc in a small apartment without cooling, connected to the Internet by a DSL connection. The connection is of high quality for a DSL, but if the pc crashes right after I leave for a few weeks of vacation, BLML will probably be down during those weeks. And even if I'm at home, I do not have a complete set of spare parts ready. The machine will also once in a while have planned downtime for maintenance - typically only for a short while, but sometimes for some hours. In practice, the server has never had a down period of more than about 12 hours during the 8 years it has been running - but it might happen. * Backup: The machine has a mirrored disk, so it can handle a disk crash without data loss. But apart from that, I only back it up occasionally, and I only rarely take a backup that is kept outside my apartment. So if someone breaks in and steals my machines and backup media, it might lose a few months' worth of BLML archives (and BLML would not be at the top of my list of things to get working again). * Spam: I do not use content filtering (spamassassin or similar) to filter out spam, and I do not particularly want to begin doing so. I use DNSBLs, and combined with a requirement that posts come from a subscribed author, I would assume that to be good enough for BLML. (I hope Mailman and Postfix together can be configured to reject unauthorized senders before the message is accepted into the mail queue.) * Viruses: I use two different free virus scanners on all mail, and BLML messages would also be scanned by them. * My own time: This is what worries me the most. I have no idea how much human interaction Mailman requires in practice. It has been a long time since I had time to read BLML regularly, not to mention participating actively. BLML would have to run almost completely automatically - or perhaps somebody else could volunteer to handle whatever daily administration the list requires. >3. Stop the list. With 300+ messages/month, I don't think this is a good > idea. I don't think so either. As for the question of whether a mailing list or a web forum is best, I would prefer a mailing list. However, my point of view is not very important in that discussion, since I only occasionally read BLML these days. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Dec 23 15:21:35 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:21:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017E959D-2D54-4C73-9039-6F2463F48055@starpower.net> On Dec 22, 2008, at 4:25 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Tobias Smollett (1721-1771): > > "I think for my part one half of the nation is mad -- and > the other not very sound." > > David Burn: > >> Would have asked over 1S, as anyone would. Would also have >> asked over 2H, as anyone would. It will come as no surprise >> that I would also have asked over 3D. >> >> What? You would not have perked up until 3D? Your country >> has some mad regulation that you can't ask about 1S or 2H >> because you would have passed in any case? Evolve. Or >> failing that, emigrate (but not to my country, which is >> ruled by madmen). > > EBU Orange Book, clause 3E1: > > "A player has the right to ask questions at her turn, but > should be aware that exercising this right has > consequences. It suggests that the player's action at the > current turn depends on the answer to the question. In > particular, if a player asks a question and then passes, she > has shown an interest in taking some other action had the > player received a different answer. Asking about a call > which has not been alerted may cause more problems than > asking about an alerted call. If, therefore, at a player's > turn to call, she does not need to have a call explained, it > is in her interests to defer all questions until either she > is about to make the opening lead or her partner's lead is > face-down on the table." I agree with David; this is totally daft. Maybe things are very different in EBU-land, but in my experience, the premise of the above, expressed in the second sentence, is flat-out wrong. As in David's case, around here when a player asks about an alerted call, it suggests only that he doesn't know what the call means and is trying to follow the auction. For anyone with the least modicum of table feel, there is much more to be gleaned by following an auction in progress than by reconstructing it at opening-lead time, when the legitimate inferences from the opponents' "tells" (which can often be so subtle as not to be consciously noted) are history. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 23 16:27:53 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:27:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <71h1l45uhkbg6v75mj9nm1sln49qvliv3t@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <001001c96513$31b7c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The future of BLML > On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 15:20:21 +0100, Henk Uijterwaal > wrote: > >>This leaves the question what we should do with the list: >> >>1. Find a commercial site who can host the mailing list. > > If this becomes the chosen solution, I don't think getting a few cents > from each subscriber is realistic. I think the solution suggested by > Richard Willey (letting volunteers donate a year or two at a time) will > work much better, and I would be happy to make such a donation. > +=+ So, too, would I. This, of course, assumes a commercial host is found that is willing to operate it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Dec 23 22:04:10 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:04:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] future of BLML Message-ID: <4951524A.4070706@aol.com> Count me in as one of those who would be prepared to help (financially) sponsor BLML in the future. But only if the format is not changed. JE From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Dec 23 22:19:41 2008 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:19:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] At the local (provincial) club Message-ID: <495155ED.2020707@aol.com> At the local club many players have become accustomed to checking the traveller (score sheet) of boards they have already played between rounds or after they finish a round and the change has not yet been called. This has various obvious disadvantages. They occasionally make a mistake and check the score of aboard they haven't yet played. They discuss the scores and other players who haven't yet played the board overhear them. Or, in the case of stronger players, they are able to more exactly calculate their position and can use the information to play the remaining boards more aggressively or cautiously. I am/was confident that it is illegal to check the travellers of other boards during the tournament but can't find it anywhere in the TBR. Can anyone help me? JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 23 23:07:03 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:07:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <017E959D-2D54-4C73-9039-6F2463F48055@starpower.net> Message-ID: The Economist, December 20th 2008, The world this year: "The first protons were circulated around the Large Hadron Collider. Designed to help physicists explain the existence of mass, some feared the experiment would create a gigantic black hole. Wall Street's collapse just a few days after the LHC was switched on was deemed a coincidence." EBU Orange Book, clause 3E1, first two sentences: "A player has the right to ask questions at her turn, but should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. It suggests that the player's action at the current turn depends on the answer to the question." Eric Landau: >I agree with David; this is totally daft. Maybe things are >very different in EBU-land, but in my experience, the >premise of the above, expressed in the second sentence, is >flat-out wrong. As in David's case, around here when a >player asks about an alerted call, it suggests only that he >doesn't know what the call means and is trying to follow >the auction. > >For anyone with the least modicum of table feel, there is >much more to be gleaned by following an auction in progress >than by reconstructing it at opening-lead time, when the >legitimate inferences from the opponents' "tells" (which >can often be so subtle as not to be consciously noted) are >history. Richard Hills: A relay auction which occurred at the table -> WEST EAST 1C (1) 1H (1) 1S (1) 1NT (1) 2C (1) 2D (1) 2H (1) 2S (1) 2NT(1) 3C (1) 3D (1) 3S (1) 3NT(2) Pass(2) (1) Alert! (2) Not alerted Note that East-West did not quite use every possible bid between 1C and 3NT, inefficiently omitting to bid 1D and 3H. Is a modicum of table feel worth the consequent slow play fine? For what it is worth, Eric's desire to follow the auction in progress would have gleaned this information -> 1C = 15+ hcp, any shape, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1)* 1H = 8+ hcp, 4+ hearts (but not balanced, i.e. not a 4333 nor 4432 shape), 2+ controls* 1S = relay 1NT = also 4+ spades 2C = relay 2D = also 4+ unspecified minor 2H = relay 2S = 4+ minor now specified as clubs 2NT = relay 3C = 4-4-1-4 3D = relay 3S = exactly 3 controls* 3NT = signoff (4C would continue the relays) Pass = the only logical alternative * singleton kings not counted During the Clarification Period (Law 22B1) East-West would have pointed out the negative inference that West could have bid 3NT one round sooner, implying that West might have had interest in slam if East had held 4 or more controls. Given that East-West ethically fully describe positive and negative inferences from their auction, is not one question by the opening leader at the end of the auction more effective (as distinct from more efficient) than fourteen questions by North-South during the auction? Merry Christmas Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 23 23:43:01 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:43:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4951524A.4070706@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson: >...But only if the format is not changed. JE Richard Hills: A big advantage of changing blml to a blog or bulletin board is that my firewall would preclude me from participating. This would significantly reduce the amount of endless drivel on blml. Winner of the Plain English No Nonsense Award for 1994: "Ideas which stress the growing importance of international cooperation and new theories of economic sovereignty across a wide range of areas -- macroeconomics, the environment, the growth of post neo-classical endogenous growth theory and the symbiotic relationships between growth and the investment in people and infrastructure." -- Gordon Brown (1951- ), world-saving statesman Merry Christmas Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Dec 24 02:54:10 2008 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:54:10 -0700 Subject: [blml] At the local (provincial) club In-Reply-To: <495155ED.2020707@aol.com> Message-ID: As you say, this practice of viewing slips during the session and between rounds is fraught with danger. I would suggest that this behaviour is inappropriate and can easily be dealt with by having the club tournament director issue a directive that is not permitted. Players who then disregard the directive can be assessed a procedural penalty by the TD of record on any given evening. Jack On 12/23/08 2:19 PM, "Jeff Easterson" wrote: > At the local club many players have become accustomed to checking the > traveller (score sheet) of boards they have already played between > rounds or after they finish a round and the change has not yet been > called. This has various obvious disadvantages. They occasionally make > a mistake and check the score of aboard they haven't yet played. They > discuss the scores and other players who haven't yet played the board > overhear them. Or, in the case of stronger players, they are able to > more exactly calculate their position and can use the information to > play the remaining boards more aggressively or cautiously. > I am/was confident that it is illegal to check the travellers of other > boards during the tournament but can't find it anywhere in the TBR. Can > anyone help me? JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Dec 24 04:18:07 2008 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:18:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] At the local (provincial) club In-Reply-To: <495155ED.2020707@aol.com> References: <495155ED.2020707@aol.com> Message-ID: <800E99758A1149B7AE1A6BD58AB5FFC8@erdos> "Jeff Easterson" writes: > At the local club many players have become accustomed to checking the > traveller (score sheet) of boards they have already played between > rounds or after they finish a round and the change has not yet been > called. This has various obvious disadvantages. They occasionally make > a mistake and check the score of aboard they haven't yet played. They > discuss the scores and other players who haven't yet played the board > overhear them. Or, in the case of stronger players, they are able to > more exactly calculate their position and can use the information to > play the remaining boards more aggressively or cautiously. > I am/was confident that it is illegal to check the travellers of other > boards during the tournament but can't find it anywhere in the TBR. Can > anyone help me? JE It's a regulation which is up to the sponsoring authority The ACBL convention card used to say on the inside, "Comparison of scores or discussion of hands with other players during the event is subject to an automatic penalty of a full board." However, many clubs are run more informally, and allow players sitting out to kibitz a board they have already played. I have even seen one set of Howell guide cards which tell players where they can kibitz in each round. From AlLevy at aol.com Fri Dec 19 05:24:39 2008 From: AlLevy at aol.com (AlLevy at aol.com) Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 23:24:39 EST Subject: [blml] Law 27B1a's reference to Law 16D Message-ID: Something to ponder... Law 16D2 states that, for the offending side, information arising from its own withdrawn action ... is UI. The interpretation is drawn that if Law 16D doesn't apply (as stated in Law 27B1a) that the opposite applies, namely, that the information gains from the insufficient bid is AI. Interestingly, it doesn't say that Law 16D2 doesn't apply, it says that Law 16D doesn't apply, so that Law 16D1 also doesn't apply. Law 16D1 states that the information from the insufficient bid is AI to the non-offending side. Following the above interpretation that the opposite applies, is the information to the non-offending side now interpreted as UI???? Of course this is nonsense! Bystry wrote... <<1C-(2S)-2H The player didn't see 2S and thought he is showing strong, slam invitational hand with 6 (rarely 5) very good hearts. Now he corrects 2H to 3H, which is forcing, but shows only 5+ hearts, not necessarily strong and the overall strength may be only sufficient for game. "Law 16D does not apply" so the knowledge that the infractor has actually a strong hand with a very good suit seems to be AI for his partner. [see above...AL] Now he may cuebid safely with Jx in hearts, whereas normally he would bid 3NT.>> When something doesn't apply, one shouldn't go any further. It doesn't apply. Instead, refer to part D, as directed. 27D. states that "if...the Director judges at the end of play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different...he shall award an adjusted score..." [I digress...The next sentence is confusing, namely, "In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred". This implies that the auction should immediately stop and an adjustment should be made. This can't be right!] Also 27D states that 12B1 applies, which takes away any advantage gained by the offending side. So while 16D doesn't apply, it is clear that the insufficient bid is a form of UI, but not one that is dealt with by Law 16D. What is the difference? If Law 16D applied, the penalty could be more severe that under 27D. In practice, a player can receive a PP for a clear case of using UI. This doesn't apply to 27D, but might apply to 16D. Even if that isn't the case, it is of little concern...Law 16D DOESN'T APPLY. Law 27D DOES! Al Levy **************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081218/4bf6b6b8/attachment.htm From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Dec 24 04:44:28 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:44:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] future of BLML [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4951524A.4070706@aol.com> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20081224143922.01e57ec0@mail.optusnet.com.au> At 09:43 AM 24/12/2008, you wrote: >Jeff Easterson: > > >...But only if the format is not changed. JE > >Richard Hills: > >A big advantage of changing blml to a blog or bulletin board >is that my firewall would preclude me from participating. > >This would significantly reduce the amount of endless drivel >on blml. > >Winner of the Plain English No Nonsense Award for 1994: > >"Ideas which stress the growing importance of international >cooperation and new theories of economic sovereignty across >a wide range of areas -- macroeconomics, the environment, >the growth of post neo-classical endogenous growth theory >and the symbiotic relationships between growth and the >investment in people and infrastructure." >-- Gordon Brown (1951- ), world-saving statesman > > >Merry Christmas I only read Playboy for the articles. I only take BLML for the quotations. I do not want to take it if Richard drops out, so I too would be happy to have our Mr Rudd contribute a year's worth. Christmas Greetings to all on BLML I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to my friends and colleagues, but it is so difficult in today's world to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my lawyer yesterday, and on her advice I wish to say the following: Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, no addictive, gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice holiday, practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted Gregorian calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that Australia is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms: This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/himself or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher. Disclaimer: No trees were harmed in the sending of this message; however, a significant number of electrons were slightly inconvenienced. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20081224/37cfdbd0/attachment.htm From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Dec 24 15:00:29 2008 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 14:00:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] At the local (provincial) club In-Reply-To: <495155ED.2020707@aol.com> References: <495155ED.2020707@aol.com> Message-ID: <1B71AD82-84D8-41A6-92C2-1F5598D98F1F@btinternet.com> On 23 Dec 2008, at 21:19, Jeff Easterson wrote: > At the local club many players have become accustomed to checking the > traveller (score sheet) of boards they have already played between > rounds or after they finish a round and the change has not yet been > called. This has various obvious disadvantages. > in the case of stronger players, they are able to > more exactly calculate their position and can use the information to > play the remaining boards more aggressively or cautiously. Fancy that - allowing players to have a greater awareness of their current score, and adjust their behaviour accordingly! Gordon Rainsford From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Dec 24 15:32:07 2008 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 09:32:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01D4473F-131F-4E40-8745-3AFCBA841239@starpower.net> On Dec 23, 2008, at 5:07 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > EBU Orange Book, clause 3E1, first two sentences: > > "A player has the right to ask questions at her turn, but > should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. > It suggests that the player's action at the current turn > depends on the answer to the question." > > Eric Landau: > >> I agree with David; this is totally daft. Maybe things are >> very different in EBU-land, but in my experience, the >> premise of the above, expressed in the second sentence, is >> flat-out wrong. As in David's case, around here when a >> player asks about an alerted call, it suggests only that he >> doesn't know what the call means and is trying to follow >> the auction. >> >> For anyone with the least modicum of table feel, there is >> much more to be gleaned by following an auction in progress >> than by reconstructing it at opening-lead time, when the >> legitimate inferences from the opponents' "tells" (which >> can often be so subtle as not to be consciously noted) are >> history. > > Richard Hills: > > A relay auction which occurred at the table -> > > WEST EAST > 1C (1) 1H (1) > 1S (1) 1NT (1) > 2C (1) 2D (1) > 2H (1) 2S (1) > 2NT(1) 3C (1) > 3D (1) 3S (1) > 3NT(2) Pass(2) > > (1) Alert! > (2) Not alerted > > Note that East-West did not quite use every possible bid > between 1C and 3NT, inefficiently omitting to bid 1D and 3H. > > Is a modicum of table feel worth the consequent slow play > fine? For what it is worth, Eric's desire to follow the > auction in progress would have gleaned this information -> > > 1C = 15+ hcp, any shape, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1)* > 1H = 8+ hcp, 4+ hearts (but not balanced, i.e. not a 4333 > nor 4432 shape), 2+ controls* > 1S = relay > 1NT = also 4+ spades > 2C = relay > 2D = also 4+ unspecified minor > 2H = relay > 2S = 4+ minor now specified as clubs > 2NT = relay > 3C = 4-4-1-4 > 3D = relay > 3S = exactly 3 controls* > 3NT = signoff (4C would continue the relays) > Pass = the only logical alternative > > * singleton kings not counted > > During the Clarification Period (Law 22B1) East-West would > have pointed out the negative inference that West could have > bid 3NT one round sooner, implying that West might have had > interest in slam if East had held 4 or more controls. > > Given that East-West ethically fully describe positive and > negative inferences from their auction, is not one question > by the opening leader at the end of the auction more > effective (as distinct from more efficient) than fourteen > questions by North-South during the auction? Yes it is -- when the auction in question is a 14-bid, totally artificial relay auction. Extended artificial sequences don't exactly lend themselves to table feel. But as I find myself in that position on average once every couple of years my at-the-table practices aren't exactly geared to it. In 99.99% of the auctions I actually encounter, there is legitimate advantage to be gained by following the auction as it unfolds. If I were to sit down for a set against Richard's symmetric relay system, I might well ask my opponents to hold their alerts of the relays and responses, but to alert me to the first bid that broke the relay chain, at which point I will (when it's my turn) ask the relayer to describe what he knows to that point, so I can follow the more-or-less natural bidding from then on. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 24 16:57:51 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2008 15:57:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy References: <01D4473F-131F-4E40-8745-3AFCBA841239@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002a01c965e0$65145200$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy > On Dec 23, 2008, at 5:07 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> EBU Orange Book, clause 3E1, first two sentences: >> >> "A player has the right to ask questions at her turn, but >> should be aware that exercising this right has consequences. >> It suggests that the player's action at the current turn >> depends on the answer to the question." >> >> Eric Landau: >> >>> I agree with David; this is totally daft. Maybe things are >>> very different in EBU-land, but in my experience, the >>> premise of the above, expressed in the second sentence, is >>> flat-out wrong. As in David's case, around here when a >>> player asks about an alerted call, it suggests only that he >>> doesn't know what the call means and is trying to follow >>> the auction. >>> >>> For anyone with the least modicum of table feel, there is >>> much more to be gleaned by following an auction in progress >>> than by reconstructing it at opening-lead time, when the >>> legitimate inferences from the opponents' "tells" (which >>> can often be so subtle as not to be consciously noted) are >>> history. >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> A relay auction which occurred at the table -> >> >> WEST EAST >> 1C (1) 1H (1) >> 1S (1) 1NT (1) >> 2C (1) 2D (1) >> 2H (1) 2S (1) >> 2NT(1) 3C (1) >> 3D (1) 3S (1) >> 3NT(2) Pass(2) >> >> (1) Alert! >> (2) Not alerted >> >> Note that East-West did not quite use every possible bid >> between 1C and 3NT, inefficiently omitting to bid 1D and 3H. >> >> Is a modicum of table feel worth the consequent slow play >> fine? For what it is worth, Eric's desire to follow the >> auction in progress would have gleaned this information -> >> >> 1C = 15+ hcp, any shape, 3+ controls (A = 2, K = 1)* >> 1H = 8+ hcp, 4+ hearts (but not balanced, i.e. not a 4333 >> nor 4432 shape), 2+ controls* >> 1S = relay >> 1NT = also 4+ spades >> 2C = relay >> 2D = also 4+ unspecified minor >> 2H = relay >> 2S = 4+ minor now specified as clubs >> 2NT = relay >> 3C = 4-4-1-4 >> 3D = relay >> 3S = exactly 3 controls* >> 3NT = signoff (4C would continue the relays) >> Pass = the only logical alternative >> >> * singleton kings not counted >> >> During the Clarification Period (Law 22B1) East-West would >> have pointed out the negative inference that West could have >> bid 3NT one round sooner, implying that West might have had >> interest in slam if East had held 4 or more controls. >> >> Given that East-West ethically fully describe positive and >> negative inferences from their auction, is not one question >> by the opening leader at the end of the auction more >> effective (as distinct from more efficient) than fourteen >> questions by North-South during the auction? > > Yes it is -- when the auction in question is a 14-bid, totally > artificial relay auction. Extended artificial sequences don't > exactly lend themselves to table feel. But as I find myself in that > position on average once every couple of years my at-the-table > practices aren't exactly geared to it. In 99.99% of the auctions I > actually encounter, there is legitimate advantage to be gained by > following the auction as it unfolds. > > If I were to sit down for a set against Richard's symmetric relay > system, I might well ask my opponents to hold their alerts of the > relays and responses, but to alert me to the first bid that broke the > relay chain, at which point I will (when it's my turn) ask the > relayer to describe what he knows to that point, so I can follow the > more-or-less natural bidding from then on. > +=+ Of course, unless you had a hand on which you might wish to compete or interrupt the calm flow of their auction. In that case you might wish to know what they are doing sooner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Dec 26 14:38:39 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:38:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? Message-ID: Beijing: "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." Is this just saying that L20 overrides L20F5(a)? I was reading it that way, but Peter Eidt noted that it could be understood as saying the there is an overriding require to give correct explanations of partnerships. That looks more likely to me. It would greatly simplify everything To go back to the start, I attempt to explain partner's bid and partner makes a small scowl. That wakes me up to the fact that my explanation is wrong. Am I obligated to correct my explanation? From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Dec 26 16:31:27 2008 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:31:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?strength_of_the_correct_explanation_requir?= =?iso-8859-15?q?ement=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1LGEet-1CmCZs0@fwd01.aul.t-online.de> From: "Robert Frick" > To go back to the start, I attempt to explain partner's bid and > partner makes a small scowl. That wakes me up to the fact that my > explanation is wrong. Am I obligated to correct my explanation? Read Law 20F4 and answer yourself: "4. If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete he must call the Director immediately. The Director applies Law 21B or Law 40B4." From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Dec 26 21:03:35 2008 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:03:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? References: Message-ID: <12246FDE1B6945DA93F9894E6B51099C@MARVLAPTOP> Rober\t Frick wrote: > > To go back to the start, I attempt to explain partner's bid and > partner > makes a small scowl. That wakes me up to the fact that my > explanation is > wrong. Am I obligated to correct my explanation? Yes, but you must bid in accordance with your misunderstanding (the scowl is UI that you may not use) and partner must bid as if your bidding accords with his understanding of the agreement (your revealed misunderstanding is UI he may not use). As the TD (who should be called) will tell you. He should also give partner a little lecture and possibly a PP if he is experienced. "Should be called," not "must be called," because L9B1(a) has been changed for some silly reason. Evidently it is because L9C doesn't forbid corrections by the non-offenders, as it should. Usually that means a waiver, which ought not to be allowed. Michael Rosenberg says he and Zia will often overlook an opponent's mechanical error without a TD's permission. Evidently that is no longer illegal, because of that "should." One might think this charitable practice is harmless, but those in the same field as the offenders would probably disagree. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com . From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Dec 27 05:44:23 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:44:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4955B2A7.5070702@verizon.net> Robert Frick wrote: > Beijing: "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." > > Is this just saying that L20 overrides L20F5(a)? I was reading it that > way, but Peter Eidt noted that it could be understood as saying the there > is an overriding require to give correct explanations of partnerships. > That looks more likely to me. It would greatly simplify everything > Read L29F5a in its entirety. You cannot indicate in any manner that partner has made a mistake. So? Don't tell him that he made a mistake. That does not prevent you from making legal explanations or calls from which partner may *infer* that he has made a mistake. If partner makes such an inference, 20F4 tells him what to do. Take the absolute interpretation of L20F5a out to its ridiculous conclusion: You hold: xx AKQxxxx xx xx. Partner opens 1NT. You bid 4D, intended as a transfer. LHO asks partner the meaning, and partner says "natural and to play". LHO passes, partner passes, and RHO backs in with a double. Are you allowed to bid 4H yourself at this point? Bear in mind that 4H will certainly indicate to partner that his explanation was in error...does that require you to pass? Beijing was simply confirmation that L20F5a means what everyone thought it meant before someone starting taking it as an absolute prohibition and applying it to legal bridge actions that were never covered by it in the first place. > To go back to the start, I attempt to explain partner's bid and partner > makes a small scowl. That wakes me up to the fact that my explanation is > wrong. Am I obligated to correct my explanation? > > > > As Peter Eidt has indicated, this would be a good time to get out your Law book and answer for yourself. This is one of the scenarios that does fall under L20F5a. Partner has reacted directly to the error. Once you notice that...well, I'll leave you to work it out (although Marv French has partly spelled it out already). Marv did make an error in his explanation, though, as L20F4 does use "must", not "should". You have no options once you realize that you have given an incorrect explanation, regardless of how you came to that realization. Hirsch Davis From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 27 11:57:53 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:57:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > To go back to the start, I attempt to explain partner's bid and partner > makes a small scowl. That wakes me up to the fact that my explanation is > wrong. Am I obligated to correct my explanation? > I do hope the list is unanimous in this one. You have woken up, and now know the correct explanation. You should tell this to opponents (no need to worry about UI to partner - he knows his system). Meanwhile, the scowl is still UI to you, so you should bid according to the system you thought you were playing. Your initial explanation is UI to your partner, so he should not interpret your next bid in the system you thought it was, but rather in the one he thought he was playing. And after all that I shall severely admonish your partner for his scowl, which is a direct infraction of L20F5a. Unanimous? From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Dec 27 12:02:58 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:02:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <4955B2A7.5070702@verizon.net> References: <4955B2A7.5070702@verizon.net> Message-ID: <49560B62.70407@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Beijing was simply confirmation that L20F5a means what everyone thought > it meant before someone starting taking it as an absolute prohibition > and applying it to legal bridge actions that were never covered by it in > the first place. Ehm? Everyone? Everyone except those that thought differently. Someone? There are many people who believe this, and some of them have come to the same conclusion independently. And if "not in any manner" is not an absolute prohibition then I don't know what is an absolute prohibition. If the Vatican says you shall not use birth control in any manner, then they mean in any manner, and no AIDS epidemic will sway them off course. To interpret this in any other way than "in any manner" needs a clarification, which you now have, but whicg was lacking until Beijing. I resent being presented here as the "someone". There are two possible interpretations here - and to say that yours is the correct one without any foundation is not the way serious discussion ought to be conducted. Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Dec 27 13:10:52 2008 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:10:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <49560B62.70407@skynet.be> References: <4955B2A7.5070702@verizon.net> <49560B62.70407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002e01c9681c$2a37e910$7ea7bb30$@com> [HdW] And if "not in any manner" is not an absolute prohibition then I don't know what is an absolute prohibition. [DALB] As has been pointed out to Herman many times, the question is not whether "not in any manner" is an absolute prohibition - no one would dispute that. Rather, the question is whether an explanation to an opponent is considered to be an indication within the meaning of Law 20F5a. The Beijing minute says that it is not: 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. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Dec 27 13:41:06 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:41:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:57:53 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> To go back to the start, I attempt to explain partner's bid and partner >> makes a small scowl. That wakes me up to the fact that my explanation is >> wrong. Am I obligated to correct my explanation? >> > > I do hope the list is unanimous in this one. It seems to be -- use the UI from partner to correction your explanation. > > You have woken up, and now know the correct explanation. You should tell > this to opponents (no need to worry about UI to partner - he knows his > system). > Meanwhile, the scowl is still UI to you, so you should bid according to > the system you thought you were playing. > Your initial explanation is UI to your partner, so he should not > interpret your next bid in the system you thought it was, but rather in > the one he thought he was playing. > And after all that I shall severely admonish your partner for his scowl, > which is a direct infraction of L20F5a. > > Unanimous? Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sat Dec 27 17:41:53 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:41:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <49560B62.70407@skynet.be> References: <4955B2A7.5070702@verizon.net> <49560B62.70407@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49565AD1.9040009@verizon.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > > I resent being presented here as the "someone". There are two possible > interpretations here - and to say that yours is the correct one without > any foundation is not the way serious discussion ought to be conducted. > > Herman. > Herman, You resent it when someone uses your name to represent your position. You resent it when someone goes out of his way not to use your name, in an attempt not to cause you offense. While bridge can be played in adherence to the Laws, there appears to be no way to discuss certain Laws without you resenting it. In that sense, you are far more contradictory and less consistent than the Laws. Since you only answer those points that support your position, and ignore those that do not, I did not, and do not, intend any sort of discussion with you, serious or otherwise. The interpretation of L20F5a that is correct was decided by the WBF in Beijing. That's a pretty solid foundation to base a position on. If you want to pretend that didn't happen, denial is fairly well defined in psychology, and you're showing all of the symptoms. As far as what that Law means, there is nothing left to discuss. If you want to discuss hypothetical improvements to explanation, or advantages of a hypothetical approach, which is all that's left of dWS after Beijing, that's another topic. Hirsch From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 27 19:07:41 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:07:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Too much lawyering ? References: <001901c95fe5$91954c40$15844c59@chello.pl><003701c9614e$f318c540$15844c59@chello.pl><004d01c96221$a6443320$15844c59@chello.pl><001401c9637a$1cb120a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001e01c9684e$035e0180$15844c59@chello.pl> Karel, > Ok so there are 3.5S bids. Now if I reverse roles, can you give me > hands where you have to decide between pass/3H and yet end up bidding > 3S which takes 10+ secs (infact longer 15-20+ sec as the 3D is a stop > bid) to decide ? 3D is a jump bid, but in reality I doubt that anyone pauses after it. But that is only a side issue. As to the examples - most of 6-1-3-3, 6-2-3-2, 5-2-3-3 (good 5) hands, some of 6-2-2-3 and 5-2-2-4 (good 5) hands. The decision is dependent on the quality of the suits, number of entries etc. I gave you already some specific examples (one of them is your own example from the last email). > In the examples I gave only 1 hand was a clear 4S bid for you but each > of them had potential for more and opposite the actual hand infact > game was on. In my opinion only 7 hands have potential for more and as I have written with 3,5 4S was an option. The fact that the game is playable or even good in many cases is caused by an untypical 3D bid with (exactly) an Ace of clubs and 109 of spades. But you managed to convince me that 4S is not that bad after 3S. Alain was closer to the truth - 4S was a normal bid (not only a LA as I thought), pass is a LA and the hesitation suggests pass and 3NT (stronger than I realized). Both could be changed to 4S if 3S or 3NT was South's decision and the limit on the hypothetical hands. > That potential versus a "No pd I want to sign off in 3S > hand", given the dreadful lack of space inflicted by the system > (unless you are super human) invariably requires thought and will > cause a pause possibly not 10 secs but easily 6+. 3S is not a sign-off, merely NF. The responder wants to play this assuming typical 3D bid with at least 9 (usually 10) cards and many points in reds. The fact that 3S shows 6 spades may prompt the opening bidder to raise. > > Another maximum 3S, despite many losers. With this hand I could think > > shortly about 3NT, but with Kx Axxxx AQxx Qx or similar hands partner > > shouldn't bid 3D, rather 2NT or flexible 2D. > > +++ well maybe the AC should have done a better job and enquired. The > impression I got was 3D shows a maximum (ie) 14/15 and at least 9+ red > cards. The emphasise was on the hcp range and shape, not the > remaining distribution in the black suits (though 3 card spade support > must be excluded ). I have no idea what 2NT means. Maybe 14/15 5332 > shape. That is not a question of system but of judgement. E.g. with 2-6-3-2 16 HCP the systemic bid after 1H-1S in my system is 3H, but my partners should instantly lock me and throw the key away if I choose it with Jx Kxxxxx AQx AQ. The same goes for 3D in the actual NS system - it shows 5-4 in the reds, but making it with KJ Kxxxx Qxxx AQ would be absurd. Even if 2NT shows 5-3-3-2, this hand is clearly better suited for notrump than e.g. Jx AQJxx AKx xxx. > >> S KQxxxxx > >> H xx > >> D xx > >> C KQ > > +++ This hand is a 3S bid over a 2D bid. The CKQ while they look good > are infact wasted - this is a much weaker hand than it appears. Over 2D it is 3S, true, but not over 3D. > Consider what you need to make 4S. Need 1 spade for sure, probably 2. > Pd has to cover all the red suit losers so AK AK that leaves no CA. > If he has the CA as per the actual hand then a red suit lead thru the > K (actual hand a diamond lead) will kill the contract straight away. > So 4S is actually quite risky. I'd be sure of 3 losers and it doesnt > take much for a 4th. This hand would cause me alot of problems. In > the end I think I'd bid 4S NOT because I feel its right but because > I'd have taken alot of time thinking about it 10+ secs easily and > bidding 3S would now put pd under severe pressure. I don't understand. AK AK is something typical for 3D. Yes, it can be AKJ KQ, AKQ KQ etc but even with such hands 4S will be playable, it's success depends on the leads, on the number of spades in partner's hand, on the position of the spade Ace. What's important - contrary to most of your other examples, spade singleton doesn't doom 4S at once. > >> ------------------------------------------------ > > >> S KQJxxx > >> H Q > >> D Qx > >> C Jxxx > >> > > > > Easy 3S. Queens are "working", but I would prefer one working K instead. > > +++ must say surprised. I thought this would be the 4S bid. Peoples > optimism overrides their caution. With pd bidding the reds the Q's > will turn into K's and the "hope" of club shortage will go up. I'd > say be quite a few hopeful 4Sers. Wrong of course - you want to bid > an invitational 3S but you cant. This hand versus S AQJ8x Hx Dx > Cxxxxxx are miles apart with the same bid for both. I suspect quite a > few would be in an agonized tank on this. This hand needs two spades and an Ace of clubs (or K with good club layout) for 4S to be playable. Too much for me and partner is not yet silenced. Change small black card for a heart and I could risk 4H, still not 4S. > >> S Jxxxxxx > >> H - > >> D A > >> C KTxxx > > > > Clear-cut 3S. You cannot count losers ignoring partner's bidding. It is > > quite probable that you won't be able to reach the table even once! > > +++ I think "cannot" needs to be replaced by "should not". Sure Pd's > points *should* be in the reds. The actual hand they weren't had a > big CA outside. Even if they are, you would need HAKQ + DKQ almost > precisely to leave nothing outside. This is pretty specific, > especially considering how 3D doesnt appear to be overly concerned > with where these points are. I think quite a few bidders will tank to > consider the odds and some will even bid it. 4S is the only game with > any chance. Losing trick count players will see 5 opposite 6/7 and > will be loathe to bid 3S NF. You maybe surprised in reality how > unclear 3S is. Sorry, for me this hand is most awful from all that you provided. I would pray to make 3S after bidding it. I think you are blinded by your disgust for the NS pair and your understanding of the 3D call is therefore flawed. I know of natural systems in which 3D is 5+-4+ invitational but no sane player bids like that with poor red suits and points in the blacks. Actual 3D was borderline, I would choose 2D even playing Precision, but I understand the South's choice because of control-rich hand and spade intermediates. That's why he bid 4S later and they got lucky. Not a crime for me and I'm definitely out of this thread. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Dec 27 19:52:21 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:52:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <007101c96854$40331180$15844c59@chello.pl> > Richard Hills: > > >>Is it a violation to play a relay system which is > >>intrinsically too complex for disclosure "before commencing > >>play", Law 40A1(b)? > > Maciej Bystry: > > >I'm in an awe of your imagination. It terrifies me that in case > >of Herman having the same ability to "interpret" the laws as > >you, we would have to cope now with the dWS 26 or so. And that > >is not a gift I wish to get from the Santa Claus ;-) > > Konrad Adenauer, first Chancellor, Federal Republic of Germany: > > "A thick skin is a gift from God." > > ABF Alert Regulations, first two sentences: > > "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may > not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in > card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully > disclosed to your opponents." > > Richard Hills: > > Is it an essential principle? What Law says so? If your ABF wants to forbid any systems, the proper way is through System Regulations, not through Alert Regulations. If any system is allowed, the player must not be penalized for the impossibility to comply with the disclosure requirements. The simplest way is to classify systems into different categories and to allow the specific category to be available on the specific level provided that you have a pre-play detailed description of the system from this category. E.g. in Poland HUMs are allowed in long matches, but you have an obligation to make the system notes (not a mere SC!) available to the opponents earlier (I'm too lenient to check a specific time interval). Nothing stops ABF from classifying relay systems into e.g. Pink Category which means you can only use them in normal events if you have a clear, detailed descriptions of all the relays in writing. That would solve the problem - at the beginning of the relay sequence you would point the opponents to the appropriate section and they could easily follow the auction without any difficulty. Anyway, without such regulations, if relay system is allowed on the given level, there is no redress for the opponents who didn't obtain full disclosure. They can only appeal to the National Authority on the basis of the regulations not compliant with the laws. Regards Maciej From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Dec 28 01:08:53 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> Robert Frick wrote: > > Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing > something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are > entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 > obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. > > Herman is completely right on this one. Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification for it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something along those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending on whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other time. Hirsch From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 28 02:01:19 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:01:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500, Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > Robert Frick wrote: >> >> Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing >> something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are >> entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 >> obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. >> >> > Herman is completely right on this one. > > Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by > partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification for > it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and > certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. > > L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by > partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something along > those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending on > whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other > time. I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Dec 28 05:49:01 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:49:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4957053D.9070800@verizon.net> Robert Frick wrote: > > > I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a > correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you > want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 > obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. > > > > > Please read all of L20. If partner mis-explains your bid, then L20F5b tells you what to do, and when to do it. You can explain your own errors in explanation, and must summon the TD to do so, as soon as you become aware of them. You can only explain your partner's errors at the end of the auction, if you are on the declaring side, or at the end of the hand if you are defending. Any correction of partner's explanation at any time prior to those is indeed a violation of L20F5a. As the Laws now stand, you can only correct MI from partner at a time when the UI of the correction does not affect partner's bidding or play. The opponents will receive full disclosure at the proper time, and will receive an adjustment in their favor if MI has affected the bidding or play. Got it? Hirsch From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 28 12:35:29 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:35:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49576481.2030905@skynet.be> Robert, how can you be so wrong! Robert Frick wrote: > > Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing > something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are > entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 > obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. > Robert, read L20F5a again. This clearly and unequivocably states that partner is not allowed to correct the misexplanation, he is not allowed to say anything, and he is not allowed to scowl. If the obligation to give correct explanations would override the L20F5a obligations, then there are no L20F5a obligations left. Whatever you may feel about it, in the simple case, the WBF have ruled that misinformation MUST be maintained and corrections MUST NOT be given. If you will start denying this in the normal case, just so that your pet theories can seem normal in the more complicated case, then you are playing a different game than I am. I am getting sick and tired of people who tell me my interpretations are wrong by forgetting how the laws work in current reality. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 28 12:37:19 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:37:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> Message-ID: <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500, Hirsch Davis > wrote: > >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing >>> something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are >>> entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 >>> obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. >>> >>> >> Herman is completely right on this one. >> >> Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by >> partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification for >> it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and >> certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. >> >> L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by >> partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something along >> those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending on >> whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other >> time. > > I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a > correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you > want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 > obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. > > Robert, that is exactly what L20F5a is saying! Please read that law and give me a single example of what it might mean, if this scowl of yours is permitted! This is not even dws, this is bridge the way it has been played for 50 years at least! Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 28 14:58:32 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:58:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:37:19 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500, Hirsch Davis >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>> Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing >>>> something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are >>>> entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 >>>> obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. >>>> >>>> >>> Herman is completely right on this one. >>> >>> Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by >>> partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification for >>> it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and >>> certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. >>> >>> L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by >>> partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something >>> along >>> those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending on >>> whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other >>> time. >> >> I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a >> correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you >> want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 >> obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. >> >> > > Robert, that is exactly what L20F5a is saying! > Please read that law and give me a single example of what it might mean, > if this scowl of yours is permitted! > > This is not even dws, this is bridge the way it has been played for 50 > years at least! Usually, when there is an apparently conflict between two laws, the more specific law is judged to override. The more specific law wouldn't make sense otherwise. For example, "Any insufficient bid maybe accepted at the option of offender's LHO." "Until his partner makes a call, a player may substitute his intended call [for an unintended call] but only if he does so without pause for thought." Now, can LHO accept an insufficient unintended call? Using only the law book, the answer is no. Essentially, the second sentence doesn't make sense otherwise -- how can a player have until his partner bids to correct an unintended bid if LHO's bid accepts it? It's the same thing here. Prior the Beijing "clarification", I would have given L20F5a priority over my L20F1 obligations. And as has been noted, players seem to naturally adopt the dWS position (though some adopt the MS position), probably one reason being adherence to L20F5a. But the WBFLC said that L20F1 overrides L20F51: "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." L20F1 is still relevant. It just is overridden whenever L20F1 obligations take hold. Yes, no one would have written L20F5a that way if it was meant to have these limitations. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS. Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that players are allowed to use information that their partner's aren't allowed to give. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Dec 28 15:51:59 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:51:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> Robert, you apparently misunderstood the original problem. The scowl was by the bidder, in response to his partner's misexplanation. If that is not the specific case L20F5a is addressing, then I don't know why that law is in the lawbook. You are just plain wrong here, Robert, and I hope it is because you were answering a different question than the one that was actually asked. Otherwise, you are not worthy of any more responses. Herman. Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:37:19 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500, Hirsch Davis >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing >>>>> something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are >>>>> entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 >>>>> obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Herman is completely right on this one. >>>> >>>> Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by >>>> partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification for >>>> it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and >>>> certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. >>>> >>>> L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by >>>> partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something >>>> along >>>> those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending on >>>> whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other >>>> time. >>> I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a >>> correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you >>> want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 >>> obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. >>> >>> >> Robert, that is exactly what L20F5a is saying! >> Please read that law and give me a single example of what it might mean, >> if this scowl of yours is permitted! >> >> This is not even dws, this is bridge the way it has been played for 50 >> years at least! > > Usually, when there is an apparently conflict between two laws, the more > specific law is judged to override. The more specific law wouldn't make > sense otherwise. For example, "Any insufficient bid maybe accepted at the > option of offender's LHO." "Until his partner makes a call, a player may > substitute his intended call [for an unintended call] but only if he does > so without pause for thought." > > Now, can LHO accept an insufficient unintended call? Using only the law > book, the answer is no. Essentially, the second sentence doesn't make > sense otherwise -- how can a player have until his partner bids to correct > an unintended bid if LHO's bid accepts it? > > It's the same thing here. Prior the Beijing "clarification", I would have > given L20F5a priority over my L20F1 obligations. And as has been noted, > players seem to naturally adopt the dWS position (though some adopt the MS > position), probably one reason being adherence to L20F5a. > > But the WBFLC said that L20F1 overrides L20F51: "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." > > L20F1 is still relevant. It just is overridden whenever L20F1 obligations > take hold. Yes, no one would have written L20F5a that way if it was meant > to have these limitations. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS. > > Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that players are > allowed to use information that their partner's aren't allowed to give. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Dec 28 22:14:23 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:14:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:51:59 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert, you apparently misunderstood the original problem. > The scowl was by the bidder, in response to his partner's misexplanation. > If that is not the specific case L20F5a is addressing, then I don't know > why that law is in the lawbook. > You are just plain wrong here, Robert, and I hope it is because you were > answering a different question than the one that was actually asked. Or trying to accomplish a different goal? > Otherwise, you are not worthy of any more responses. I am not sure what you are trying to argue. Are you trying to discuss what the laws say and ignoring Beijing? We can discuss that if you want, but I never meant to be discussing that here. Are you trying to argue that Beijing should be ignored? Because I don't see you taking Beijing seriously. Where do you even mention the Beijing minute. Taking Beijing seriously might lead you to ask why L20F5a is even in the lawbook. Do we agree on that part? Or do you have some other way of interpreting Beijing? T > Herman. > > Robert Frick wrote: >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:37:19 -0500, Herman De Wael >> wrote: >> >>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500, Hirsch Davis >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>>> Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing >>>>>> something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are >>>>>> entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 >>>>>> obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Herman is completely right on this one. >>>>> >>>>> Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by >>>>> partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification >>>>> for >>>>> it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and >>>>> certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. >>>>> >>>>> L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by >>>>> partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something >>>>> along >>>>> those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending >>>>> on >>>>> whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other >>>>> time. >>>> I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a >>>> correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you >>>> want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 >>>> obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. >>>> >>>> >>> Robert, that is exactly what L20F5a is saying! >>> Please read that law and give me a single example of what it might >>> mean, >>> if this scowl of yours is permitted! >>> >>> This is not even dws, this is bridge the way it has been played for 50 >>> years at least! >> >> Usually, when there is an apparently conflict between two laws, the more >> specific law is judged to override. The more specific law wouldn't make >> sense otherwise. For example, "Any insufficient bid maybe accepted at >> the >> option of offender's LHO." "Until his partner makes a call, a player may >> substitute his intended call [for an unintended call] but only if he >> does >> so without pause for thought." >> >> Now, can LHO accept an insufficient unintended call? Using only the law >> book, the answer is no. Essentially, the second sentence doesn't make >> sense otherwise -- how can a player have until his partner bids to >> correct >> an unintended bid if LHO's bid accepts it? >> >> It's the same thing here. Prior the Beijing "clarification", I would >> have >> given L20F5a priority over my L20F1 obligations. And as has been noted, >> players seem to naturally adopt the dWS position (though some adopt the >> MS >> position), probably one reason being adherence to L20F5a. >> >> But the WBFLC said that L20F1 overrides L20F51: "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." >> >> L20F1 is still relevant. It just is overridden whenever L20F1 >> obligations >> take hold. Yes, no one would have written L20F5a that way if it was >> meant >> to have these limitations. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS. >> >> Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that players are >> allowed to use information that their partner's aren't allowed to give. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Dec 28 23:23:29 2008 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:23:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4957FC61.9040700@verizon.net> Robert, I have no idea what you are thinking, but you appear to be completely lost. Beijing had no effect at all on how the obligation to correct MI from partner is met. It simply pointed out that correct explanation of partnership agreements required by Law, given by the proper person at the proper time, were not in violation of L20F5a (even if partner could infer from such an explanation that he had made an error). L20F5a is in the Lawbook precisely because of your original premise. A scowl is not an explanation of partnership agreements required by Law. You may not scowl (or use any other indicator) in response to partner to show that his explanation was in error. In other words, you may not say, either verbally or non-verbally, "Partner, you made a mistake". Herman and I may not see eye to eye on some things but I do believe we are in complete agreement on this, and I doubt that you will find anyone on blml who will disagree with what Herman has written in regard to your original problem. If you are not a native English speaker and need help in understanding exactly what L20 says, please indicate where the problem lies and I will try to assist. If you are a fluent English speaker, then I suggest that you use that skill and address it to L20 until you've understood each of the clauses. Right now, you are writing nonsense. Hirsch Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:51:59 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >> Robert, you apparently misunderstood the original problem. >> The scowl was by the bidder, in response to his partner's misexplanation. >> If that is not the specific case L20F5a is addressing, then I don't know >> why that law is in the lawbook. >> You are just plain wrong here, Robert, and I hope it is because you were >> answering a different question than the one that was actually asked. >> > > Or trying to accomplish a different goal? > > > >> Otherwise, you are not worthy of any more responses. >> > > > I am not sure what you are trying to argue. Are you trying to discuss what > the laws say and ignoring Beijing? We can discuss that if you want, but I > never meant to be discussing that here. > > Are you trying to argue that Beijing should be ignored? Because I don't > see you taking Beijing seriously. Where do you even mention the Beijing > minute. > > Taking Beijing seriously might lead you to ask why L20F5a is even in the > lawbook. Do we agree on that part? Or do you have some other way of > interpreting Beijing? > > T > > > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 29 08:56:40 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:56:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:51:59 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert, you apparently misunderstood the original problem. >> The scowl was by the bidder, in response to his partner's misexplanation. >> If that is not the specific case L20F5a is addressing, then I don't know >> why that law is in the lawbook. >> You are just plain wrong here, Robert, and I hope it is because you were >> answering a different question than the one that was actually asked. > > Or trying to accomplish a different goal? > > >> Otherwise, you are not worthy of any more responses. > > > I am not sure what you are trying to argue. Are you trying to discuss what > the laws say and ignoring Beijing? We can discuss that if you want, but I > never meant to be discussing that here. > But this is not Beijing! > Are you trying to argue that Beijing should be ignored? Because I don't > see you taking Beijing seriously. Where do you even mention the Beijing > minute. > Because this is not what Beijing is for! > Taking Beijing seriously might lead you to ask why L20F5a is even in the > lawbook. Do we agree on that part? Or do you have some other way of > interpreting Beijing? > Robert, you have now reached the start of the end of the line. Indeed, if the WBF intend to be consistent, then they should do one of two things: either rescind Beijing or rescind L20F5a. but I don't think they intend to do either, because they don't want to be consistent - or more likely they don't even realise how inconsistent they are. But you go a couple of steps too far. You interpret Beijing not just as an exception to L20F5a, but as a complete scrapping of that law. I really don't think that is what is intended. But at least you have understood the inconsistency. Herman. > T > > >> Herman. >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 06:37:19 -0500, Herman De Wael >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:08:53 -0500, Hirsch Davis >>>>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Robert Frick wrote: >>>>>>> Herman, Herman. We know you like L20F5a. But unless I am missing >>>>>>> something, the key sections of L20 are about what the opponents are >>>>>>> entitled to know. Partner's scowl is his way of meeting his L20 >>>>>>> obligations. These obligations override any L20F5a obligations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Herman is completely right on this one. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please read the Laws. Really. The scowl in response to an error by >>>>>> partner is a direct violation of L20F5a. There is no justification >>>>>> for >>>>>> it anywhere else in L20. It will merit a warning at minimum, and >>>>>> certainly be penalized if the behavior persists. >>>>>> >>>>>> L20F5b describes when a player should summon a TD to correct MI by >>>>>> partner. This is done by a call of "Director Please" or something >>>>>> along >>>>>> those lines, not a scowl...but only at the time permitted (depending >>>>>> on >>>>>> whether the player's side is declaring or defending) and at no other >>>>>> time. >>>>> I am not sure what you are saying. L20F1 entitles my opponents to a >>>>> correct explanation of my bid. Partner has misexplained my bid. Do you >>>>> want to argue, with Herman, that F20F5a should over-ride my L20F1 >>>>> obligations? I am sure Herman will enjoy the company. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Robert, that is exactly what L20F5a is saying! >>>> Please read that law and give me a single example of what it might >>>> mean, >>>> if this scowl of yours is permitted! >>>> >>>> This is not even dws, this is bridge the way it has been played for 50 >>>> years at least! >>> Usually, when there is an apparently conflict between two laws, the more >>> specific law is judged to override. The more specific law wouldn't make >>> sense otherwise. For example, "Any insufficient bid maybe accepted at >>> the >>> option of offender's LHO." "Until his partner makes a call, a player may >>> substitute his intended call [for an unintended call] but only if he >>> does >>> so without pause for thought." >>> >>> Now, can LHO accept an insufficient unintended call? Using only the law >>> book, the answer is no. Essentially, the second sentence doesn't make >>> sense otherwise -- how can a player have until his partner bids to >>> correct >>> an unintended bid if LHO's bid accepts it? >>> >>> It's the same thing here. Prior the Beijing "clarification", I would >>> have >>> given L20F5a priority over my L20F1 obligations. And as has been noted, >>> players seem to naturally adopt the dWS position (though some adopt the >>> MS >>> position), probably one reason being adherence to L20F5a. >>> >>> But the WBFLC said that L20F1 overrides L20F51: "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." >>> >>> L20F1 is still relevant. It just is overridden whenever L20F1 >>> obligations >>> take hold. Yes, no one would have written L20F5a that way if it was >>> meant >>> to have these limitations. YOU HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT FOR YEARS. >>> >>> Anyway, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to say that players are >>> allowed to use information that their partner's aren't allowed to give. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Dec 29 11:21:50 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:21:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000701c9699f$45076980$15844c59@chello.pl> Herman, Herman. > Robert, you have now reached the start of the end of the line. > Indeed, if the WBF intend to be consistent, then they should do one of > two things: either rescind Beijing or rescind L20F5a. but I don't think > they intend to do either, because they don't want to be consistent - or > more likely they don't even realise how inconsistent they are. > > But you go a couple of steps too far. You interpret Beijing not just as > an exception to L20F5a, but as a complete scrapping of that law. I > really don't think that is what is intended. > > But at least you have understood the inconsistency. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. I would warmly welcome the abolition of L20F5a, you would warmly welcome the allowance for the dWS. Both positions have their merits and supporters. It is a question of philosophical approach and of vested interest (TDs, NOS, OS have different goals). I'm a kind of daydreamer who believes that bridge players may be educated to the extent of understanding UI restrictions and knuckle under them. You believe that without the appropriate prevention there will be too many cases of abuse of UI, so it will result in too much work for the TDs and will consume too much time. I abhor the unpleasantness and discomfort the NOS suffers because of having false image of the deal, playing stupid contracts or declaring and defending based on false prerequisites, compensated only by something like 50-60% of matchpoints. You believe that the second (probably first too) UI is too much "penalty" for the OS and it's better to leave MI and solve it later, so that the OS gets 40-60% for their "light crime of misinformation" instead of something closer to zero. As you see, it is not easy to satisfy everyone. Do you really think that some sort of compromise is bad, just because that way the UI vs MI laws are slightly inconsistent? Bah, this inconsistency is caused by something more important than the different views. Enforcing your version of L20F5a would result in an *obligation* to give MI, something completely absent from TFLB. Au contraire, deliberate concealment of partnership understandings is regarded as one of the worst bridge crimes. Exactly, *intent* is something that separates ordinary bridge players from cheats. Remaining silent over unintended MI may be acceptable (i.e. lesser evil), but purposeful misinforming, even if temporary, is abhored. Therefore giving correct explanations takes precedence over preventing UI. You may disagree what is more important, but you should see that in this aspect the laws *are* consistent, and when the two hypothetical consistencies clash, what is the result? Something has to change. Un-deniable dilemma. Boredom's not a burden Anyone should bear. The result is Beijing interpretation and we have to live with it. Maybe it is time for a new hobby-horse, Herman? ;-) > Herman. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Dec 29 11:52:36 2008 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:52:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <000701c9699f$45076980$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be> <000701c9699f$45076980$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4958ABF4.5090302@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > Herman, Herman. > Maciej, Maciej, >> Robert, you have now reached the start of the end of the line. >> Indeed, if the WBF intend to be consistent, then they should do one of >> two things: either rescind Beijing or rescind L20F5a. but I don't think >> they intend to do either, because they don't want to be consistent - or >> more likely they don't even realise how inconsistent they are. >> >> But you go a couple of steps too far. You interpret Beijing not just as >> an exception to L20F5a, but as a complete scrapping of that law. I >> really don't think that is what is intended. >> >> But at least you have understood the inconsistency. > > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. > ???? What is wrong with consistency? How can it be foolish? > I would warmly welcome the abolition of L20F5a, you would warmly welcome the > allowance for the dWS. Both positions have their merits and supporters. It > is a question of philosophical approach and of vested interest (TDs, NOS, OS > have different goals). > Two remarks: 1) L20F5a has been in existence (under different numbers) since as long as anyone here can remember. To argue for its abolition is a far different thing than to argue for its logical extension which is the dws. 2) Even if there is to be a choice to be made between the two consistent approaches (abolition of L20F5a or dws), there are many logical reasons why dws results in a better form of bridge. This is not just a personal preference, but a reasoned personal preference. > I'm a kind of daydreamer who believes that bridge players may be educated to > the extent of understanding UI restrictions and knuckle under them. You > believe that without the appropriate prevention there will be too many cases > of abuse of UI, so it will result in too much work for the TDs and will > consume too much time. > No Maciej, I believe bridge is played better without UI. Even when players are educated about how to treat UI they have received, I believe it is better if the UI itself is being avoided. > I abhor the unpleasantness and discomfort the NOS suffers because of having > false image of the deal, playing stupid contracts or declaring and defending > based on false prerequisites, compensated only by something like 50-60% of > matchpoints. You believe that the second (probably first too) UI is too much > "penalty" for the OS and it's better to leave MI and solve it later, so that > the OS gets 40-60% for their "light crime of misinformation" instead of > something closer to zero. > You may abhor this unpleasantness and discomfort to such a degree that you give them an overly beneficial adjustment. That is never 50-60% of matchpoints, that is quite often 100%. But anyway, these are personal preferences, and those are not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is that a law which requires a player to give UI is unworkable - not only will you have the same problem as before - that of dealing with the UI, but you will have an extra problem about what to do if the player refuses to give the obligatory UI. Really Maciej, that problem is far more important than the one about which law you personally prefer to see broken, which problem you prefer to see ruled upon. You're a director, you should not worry about whether MI sufferers are compensated enough, you are the one who gives the compensation - give them enough and don't worry about it. > As you see, it is not easy to satisfy everyone. Do you really think that > some sort of compromise is bad, just because that way the UI vs MI laws are > slightly inconsistent? > No, of course a compromise is not bad, but you don't propose a compromise: you propose a strict application of one system for one situation and the totally opposite one for the slightly different other situation. Mine is a compromise: I allow players, in the dws position, to chose, without prejudice, whether they shall give UI or MI. You are the one that does not compromise, not me! And as for "slightly" inconsistent, that is a bit like slightly pregnant, and I don't even agree with it being slightly. Beijing, taken as it is currently interpreted by persons like yourself, is a huge inconsistency. You are very harsh against the "scowler", but one second later you are equally harsh against the "dwser", while he does exactly the opposite. The number of people who don't realise their obligations will swell even worse when this interpretation gets fully known. It is ludicrous. "My partner gave a wrong explanation and I scowled". "You dirty cheat, you deliberately gave UI!". "My partner gave a wrong explanation and I did not scowl, then he made a call which he intended as natural so I did not alert". "You dirty cheat, you deliberately gave MI!". And you call this "slightly" inconsistent? > Bah, this inconsistency is caused by something more important than the > different views. Enforcing your version of L20F5a would result in an > *obligation* to give MI, something completely absent from TFLB. Au > contraire, deliberate concealment of partnership understandings is regarded > as one of the worst bridge crimes. Exactly, *intent* is something that > separates ordinary bridge players from cheats. Remaining silent over > unintended MI may be acceptable (i.e. lesser evil), but purposeful > misinforming, even if temporary, is abhored. Therefore giving correct > explanations takes precedence over preventing UI. You may disagree what is > more important, but you should see that in this aspect the laws *are* > consistent, and when the two hypothetical consistencies clash, what is the > result? > > Something has to change. > Un-deniable dilemma. > Boredom's not a burden > Anyone should bear. > > The result is Beijing interpretation and we have to live with it. Maybe it > is time for a new hobby-horse, Herman? ;-) > Why? Am I not allowed to argue that the Beijing interpretation is wrong? Especially since the wording is not even completely in line with the interpretation you seem to give about it. I read something quite different from you. I read "MS is acceptable". You read "dws is unacceptable". Not the same thing. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Seasons greetings, Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 29 19:23:33 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:23:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be><000701c9699f$45076980$15844c59@chello.pl> <4958ABF4.5090302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c969e2$9374f1d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 10:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? > Bystry wrote: >> Herman, Herman. >> > > Maciej, Maciej, > >>> Robert, you have now reached the start of the end of the line. >>> Indeed, if the WBF intend to be consistent, then they should do one of >>> two things: either rescind Beijing or rescind L20F5a. but I don't think >>> they intend to do either, because they don't want to be consistent - or >>> more likely they don't even realise how inconsistent they are. >>> >>> But you go a couple of steps too far. You interpret Beijing not just as >>> an exception to L20F5a, but as a complete scrapping of that law. I >>> really don't think that is what is intended. >>> +=+ Extract from The By-Laws of the WBF, to which its member NBOs subscribe:- WBF Laws Committee. "The President shall appoint a Laws Committee and shall designate the Chairman of such Committee. The Committee shall consist of not less than seven members representing at least three Zones.The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes in these laws it deems appropriate , subject to approval by the Executive. The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. The Laws Committee shall fix its own rules of procedure and shall act as provided by such rules or by direction of the Executive." ..................................................................................................................... The Beijing minute specifies that the statement about Law 20 is an interpretation of the law duly made as the By-Law authorizes. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Dec 29 19:47:36 2008 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 13:47:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? In-Reply-To: <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be> References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 02:56:40 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > > But you go a couple of steps too far. You interpret Beijing not just as > an exception to L20F5a, but as a complete scrapping of that law. I > really don't think that is what is intended. Okay. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 30 02:23:09 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:23:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] strength of the correct explanation requirement? References: <49560A31.7010203@skynet.be> <4956C395.7050200@verizon.net> <495764EF.8000804@skynet.be> <4957928F.1070504@skynet.be> <495882B8.7080409@skynet.be><000701c9699f$45076980$15844c59@chello.pl> <4958ABF4.5090302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c96a1d$2db1e980$15844c59@chello.pl> > > A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. > > > > ???? > > What is wrong with consistency? How can it be foolish? Imagination has failed you? In real life you encounter exceptions to the consistent approaches everyday. Flexibility is much more reasonable and much more human. Even the laws and rules are often inconsistent, when the other laws, higher necessity, practicality or common sense takes precedence. In Poland some frogs have barriers, those without are divided into two categories - with obligatory stop and without. Why should all the drivers waste the time and block the traffic, stopping before the frog very rarely used by the trains? Take traffic lights, the duration of green light for pedestrians differs, it depends on the importance of the road/street and the frequency of usage of the walkways. Especially arterial roads have longer durations of red lights for the pedestrians, otherwise traffic jams would be much bigger. Or take the priority of the special cars (ambulances, squad cars, fire brigades) - normally driving on the red light, crossing the double white line etc are strictly forbidden and harshly penalised, but when making the way for the special car you are allowed (even obliged) to do such things without any penalty. > > I would warmly welcome the abolition of L20F5a, you would warmly welcome the > > allowance for the dWS. Both positions have their merits and supporters. It > > is a question of philosophical approach and of vested interest (TDs, NOS, OS > > have different goals). > > > > Two remarks: > > 1) L20F5a has been in existence (under different numbers) since as long > as anyone here can remember. To argue for its abolition is a far > different thing than to argue for its logical extension which is the dws. The disclosure rules have also been in existence for a long time. To argue for denying the players' right to know the correct systemic explanations of the calls made by their opponents is a far different thing than to argue for the logical extension of full disclosure which is the abolition of L20F5a. > 2) Even if there is to be a choice to be made between the two consistent > approaches (abolition of L20F5a or dws), there are many logical reasons > why dws results in a better form of bridge. This is not just a personal > preference, but a reasoned personal preference. Yeah, sure. Such statements have no objective value, their main reason is to provoke and to try to create an illusion that logic and reason is only on one of the sides. I told you, if you wish that the people continue discussing with you and try to understand and accept your arguments, the polemic has to be fair - you must not act simultaneously as a participant in the discussion and as an arbiter. Otherwise you will be simply ignored (as already done by some of your ex-interlocutors) and that won't mean you'd won the debate, au contraire. But hey, I tried to explain it to you many times and it seems you are simply a die-hard. Do as you wish, I won't become provoked, I don't want to engage in another "you're so, so, so, so, ..., wrong" discussion. > > I'm a kind of daydreamer who believes that bridge players may be educated to > > the extent of understanding UI restrictions and knuckle under them. You > > believe that without the appropriate prevention there will be too many cases > > of abuse of UI, so it will result in too much work for the TDs and will > > consume too much time. > > > > No Maciej, I believe bridge is played better without UI. Even when > players are educated about how to treat UI they have received, I believe > it is better if the UI itself is being avoided. All right, so we share this belief. But as you perfectly know the transmition of UI is unavoidable. You may prevent it in the case of the dWS, but that is only a tiny part of the whole UI mess. Mimics, certainty of the hand, different duration of thought before acting, etc are much more common and together have much bigger impact on the results than rare cases of the second question after the mixup. Even screens and playing online only reduce the effects of UI, the tempo of the passing of the tray (or making the call online), sounds of making the calls, writing, mumbling are all present and it is quite naive to think that establishing "UI-free zone" of any length eliminates UI transmition. Yes, the players are sometimes no longer sure who caused the break, but knowing their partners and hearing the sounds from the other side of the screen they may reasonably estimate it and act accordingly. Most of the time they will be right. No, the only way to nearly eliminate UI is using the technology - putting the players into closed one-man rooms with terminal and monitors showing only the view of the opponents, displaying calls and plays made by all players in constant time intervals (e.g. 30 seconds for each call, 10 seconds for each play except first trick's 30 seconds, if the player thinks longer there are many possibilities - e.g. automatic pass and play of the lowest possible card or random call/play or indicating to all the players that there is UI which will be resolved traditionally in those rare cases). It is quite possible that top events will be played this way in the future, but the common bridge won't. The costs are too high and many players like social element. > > I abhor the unpleasantness and discomfort the NOS suffers because of having > > false image of the deal, playing stupid contracts or declaring and defending > > based on false prerequisites, compensated only by something like 50-60% of > > matchpoints. You believe that the second (probably first too) UI is too much > > "penalty" for the OS and it's better to leave MI and solve it later, so that > > the OS gets 40-60% for their "light crime of misinformation" instead of > > something closer to zero. > > > > You may abhor this unpleasantness and discomfort to such a degree that > you give them an overly beneficial adjustment. That is never 50-60% of > matchpoints, that is quite often 100%. Unfortunately "equity" adjustments usually are from a 50-60% range. Take a classical example - the opponents misinform you and you no longer are able to play in your suit, instead you end up in poor 3NT which goes many down. Now the TD gives an adjusted score of 4S, but that contract is dependent on the two way finesse and there are no sure backgrounds which would help to decide. So even using sympathetic weightings 60% of 4S made and 40% of 4S-1 (as far as I know Ton recommends 50/50) your end result will be usually lower than 60%. 50/50 would result in an average, something equivalent to being partially responsible for the artificial adjusted score (!). Specific kind of "equity". > But anyway, these are personal preferences, and those are not what I am > talking about. Why? The laws are stated and we must obey them independent of our personal preferences. But those preferences are vital when discussing hypothetical changes. What is the basis of the dWS? You stated that many times - prevention of second UI. Why do you want to prevent it? Because it restricts partner's options and frequently results in worse scores. Exactly, saving the OS from the really bad score is the basis of the dWS. All your other arguments (like that from below) are merely side issues. So why does your preference - helping the OS is more important than my preference - helping the NOS? Better score for the OS is automaticly worse score for the NOS. And the OS is to be blamed for a whole mess, for the TD work, for the NOS's discomfort. > What I am talking about is that a law which requires a player to give UI > is unworkable - not only will you have the same problem as before - that > of dealing with the UI, but you will have an extra problem about what to > do if the player refuses to give the obligatory UI. Extra problem? No, it is easy solvable if you substitute "if the player deliberately conceals his partnership understandings" for "if the player refuses to give the obligatory UI". These statements are actually equal and such player is simply a cheat. I'll do the same to him as I would do to someone who deliberately breaks any other rules - big PPs and possibly an expulsion. Yes, first time he may plead lack of knowledge, second time he may plead believing his partner's explanation, but third time there will be no escape. L23 is appropriate to cope with such things. Remember Herman that every rule may be broken deliberately and it is not at once obvious that the intent was there. E.g. I know about two cases of deliberate drawing the traveller from incorrect board - the player (the same in both cases, but they were separated by a quite large time interval) estimated that 40% is enough for him to win the event and didn't want to risk a zero. Nobody realized that it was done deliberately (although in my opinion conscious TD should smell something), such accidents happened all the time. There are many cases in which it would be impossible to foresee the benefit of breaking the rules, but there are some "cheat-prone", like Alcatraz Coup positions. We usually cannot prove the intent, instead we adjust on the basis of "could have known". The dWS is one of such cases, it is obvious that changing the story is beneficial for the OS and it is also obvious that sincere changes of mind are rare when the call is correct according to system. Of course, some "innocents" will be penalised, but the same goes for the players in the other "could have known" positions. That is sometimes the price to pay after the infraction. > Really Maciej, that problem is far more important than the one about > which law you personally prefer to see broken, which problem you prefer > to see ruled upon. You're a director, you should not worry about whether > MI sufferers are compensated enough, you are the one who gives the > compensation - give them enough and don't worry about it. I'm a player, Herman. I don't direct. I'm strongly opposed to the modern "equity" trends and I couldn't do my job fairly because of the inner conflict. I thought you knew that, wasn't it easy to read from my frequent comments? The director has to operate in the borders determined by the laws - I couldn't give the MI sufferers enough compensation because I would be overruled by an AC and after some similar cases I would be deprived of my TD license. > > As you see, it is not easy to satisfy everyone. Do you really think that > > some sort of compromise is bad, just because that way the UI vs MI laws are > > slightly inconsistent? > > > > No, of course a compromise is not bad, but you don't propose a > compromise: you propose a strict application of one system for one > situation and the totally opposite one for the slightly different other > situation. > Mine is a compromise: I allow players, in the dws position, to chose, > without prejudice, whether they shall give UI or MI. You are the one > that does not compromise, not me! Not really. You didn't comment on the last part of my earlier email. Read it again, you will see that your approach actually clashes with the longlasting consistency - no player is allowed to give deliberate MI. There is no place in the laws where this rule is broken. And giving UI is sometimes allowed (thinking, correct explanations etc). What's more, consistency often depends on the exact set of things that you consider. You certainly agree that in your infamous 4NT-5D example everyone should explain 5D as diamond preference provided that there was no earlier misexplanation. Even if asked "how many aces?". So is it not consistent that you still explain it as diamond preference after the partner's earlier misexplanation? Remember that in both cases you give him UI (although in one case you don't know it yet). > You are very harsh against the "scowler", but one second later you are > equally harsh against the "dwser", while he does exactly the opposite. > The number of people who don't realise their obligations will swell even > worse when this interpretation gets fully known. It is ludicrous. I'm not harsh against scowler. It's human nature to react that way. Not every bridge player is able to keep poker face. > "My partner gave a wrong explanation and I scowled". "You dirty cheat, > you deliberately gave UI!". Moonshine. Nobody calls the scowler "a cheat". He simply had a chance that his partner will recover from the mistaken state of mind, now he has no such chance. What could be the benefit of scowling? Nobody will voluntarily scowl because it can only worsen his score. > "My partner gave a wrong explanation and I did not scowl, then he made a > call which he intended as natural so I did not alert". "You dirty cheat, > you deliberately gave MI!". Exactly. Here the player deliberately misinforms his opponents in order to improve his own score - that is cheating. > And you call this "slightly" inconsistent? Those are totally different things, in one case there is an intent, in the second one there isn't. So the solutions are also different. > Seasons greetings, > Herman. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 05:51:58 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:51:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Der Rosenkavalier (was ...of...) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <12246FDE1B6945DA93F9894E6B51099C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: The Optimist's Handbook, Niall Edworthy & Petra Cramsie, page 80: Judge: But, Mr Smith, your client is no doubt aware of vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt? Lawyer: Indeed, my lord, in Barnsley they talk of little else. Marvin French asserted: >Michael Rosenberg says he and Zia will often overlook an >opponent's mechanical error without a TD's permission. Evidently >that is no longer illegal, because of that "should." 1997 Laws, Scope and Interpretation: "When these Laws say that a player 'may' do something ('any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction'), the failure to do it is not wrong." Richard Hills quibbles: So under the 1997 Lawbook, Michael Rosenkavalier acted perfectly legally whenever he failed to draw attention to an opponent's irregularity. On the other hand, the heading of Law 9B is "After Attention Is Drawn to an Irregularity", which is a different kettle of fish. Law 9B1(a): "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." Richard Hills quibbles: While Marvin French correctly notes that the 1997 word "must" has been replaced in the 2007 Law 9B1(a) with the word "should", Marvin dormientibusly deduces that therefore obeying the 2007 Law 9B1(a) is optional. A vigilantibus interpreter of Law 9B1(a) would not examine that Law alone, but also read the Introduction. The Introduction states, "For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws.", and it is also the Introduction which defines the bridge meaning of "should": "'should' do (failure to do it **is an infraction** jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized)" Ergo, failure to obey either the 1997 or the 2007 Law 9B1(a) is an infraction for Michael Rosenkavalier. And if Der Rosenkavalier happened to play against me when I drew attention to my exposed card during the auction, his illegal failure to obey Law 9B1(a) would fail to gain him his usual warm inner glow, since Law 9B1(b): "Any player, including dummy, may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." Richard Hills kamikazes: I would prevent an infraction of Law 9B1(a) by summoning the Director against myself. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 30 07:01:04 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:01:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007101c96854$40331180$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Jean Giraudoux, Tiger at the Gates, 1935: "We all know here that the law is the most powerful of schools for the imagination. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth." Maciej Bystry: >If any system is allowed, the player must not be penalized for >the impossibility to comply with the disclosure requirements. Richard Hills: If: (a) the Regulating Authority requires "crucial" aspects of all systems to be pre-Alerted, and (b) the legal system in question is so complex that the players have to guess which particular aspects are "crucial" (and thus pre-Alertable) and which "non-crucial" (thus Alerted during the auction), and (c) a piece of the system was not pre-Alerted because it was very rare (Acol Blackwood 4NT), but had devastating effect during the auction (double slam swing) as the opponents "crucially" could not prepare a defence before play, then (d) should the Director adjust the score under the "crucial" Law 40B6(b)? Happy New Year Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Dec 30 07:56:02 2008 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 17:56:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <007101c96854$40331180$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <200812300656.mBU6u8X1012208@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:01 PM 30/12/2008, you wrote: >Jean Giraudoux, Tiger at the Gates, 1935: > >"We all know here that the law is the most powerful of schools >for the imagination. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely >as a lawyer interprets the truth." > >Maciej Bystry: > > >If any system is allowed, the player must not be penalized for > >the impossibility to comply with the disclosure requirements. > >Richard Hills: > >If: > >(a) the Regulating Authority requires "crucial" aspects of all > systems to be pre-Alerted, and >(b) the legal system in question is so complex that the players > have to guess which particular aspects are "crucial" (and > thus pre-Alertable) and which "non-crucial" (thus Alerted > during the auction), and >(c) a piece of the system was not pre-Alerted because it was > very rare (Acol Blackwood 4NT), but had devastating effect > during the auction (double slam swing) as the opponents > "crucially" could not prepare a defence before play, then >(d) should the Director adjust the score under the "crucial" > Law 40B6(b)? > Undoubtedly. The perpetrators should have alerted (and announced their 4NT) "Sorry that's not in our pre-alerts but you should protect yourself by asking about this self-alerting bid". Regards, Tony (Sydney) >Happy New Year > >Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please >advise the sender and delete the message and attachments >immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain >confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright >information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use >of this information by persons or entities other than the intended >recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental >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 darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Dec 30 09:23:08 2008 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 09:23:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001201c96a57$d8b661a0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Richard Hills: > > If: > > (a) the Regulating Authority requires "crucial" aspects of all > systems to be pre-Alerted, and > (b) the legal system in question is so complex that the players > have to guess which particular aspects are "crucial" (and > thus pre-Alertable) and which "non-crucial" (thus Alerted > during the auction), and Hold on. Is it defined by your Regulating Authority what does "crucial" mean? Such things must not be left for the TD to decide, the players must know beforehand what is required from them. Anyway, I don't believe that any system may be overloaded with untypical agreements requiring the preparation of a defence and simultaneously allowed in popular events. Usually only openings, first round overcalls and some early-round competitive calls may require pre-play preparation. And if your Regulating Authority wants the pre-alerts to be a substitute for the alerts which they earlier forbid, such policy is anti-player. The users of the unusal systems may be forced to prepare a non-standard SC with detailed description and with first-page summary of unusal agreements, but they shouldn't be forced to pre-alert all of them, it should be enough to say "our system is untypical, please check the SC". > (c) a piece of the system was not pre-Alerted because it was > very rare (Acol Blackwood 4NT), but had devastating effect > during the auction (double slam swing) as the opponents > "crucially" could not prepare a defence before play, then > (d) should the Director adjust the score under the "crucial" > Law 40B6(b)? I'm unable to respond to such an abstract question. My imagination fails me when I'm trying to construct the case in which the slam-level call required preparated defence other than just "playing bridge". I may understand that transfer openings/responses, untypical calls without the anchor suit or "random" calls may cause harm when not pre-alerted. In such cases I would wholeheartedly support the adjustment, especially for the inexperienced opponents. Otherwise not. Happy New Year Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Dec 30 22:45:15 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 08:45:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lawrence Peter (Yogi) Berra: "It's like deja vu all over again." Melissa Anelli, Harry, a History, pages 211 and 214: "The 'ships', short for 'relationships' were, in this case, the potential coupling of Harry and Hermione versus Ron and Hermione." ..... "It all started with a semicolon. When the stunning Fleur Delacour smiles at Ron at the end of Goblet of Fire, a semicolon stands between her action and Hermione's resultant scowl. For Ron/Hermione shippers, this meant that the smile caused Hermione's scowl, and therefore Hermione's affection lay with Ron. Harry/Hermione shippers argued that the entire scene -- which features Fleur also showering affection on Harry -- annoyed Hermione. From a study of detail as minute as punctuation sprang endless and vicious online debates" J.K. Rowling, 2005 interview (immediately after publication of the sixth Harry Potter book, Harry Potter and the Half- Blood Prince): "I will say that, yes, I personally feel ... it's done, isn't it? We know. Yes, we do know now that it's [snip] and Hermione. I do feel that I have dropped heavy hints. Anvil-sized, actually, hints, prior to this point." Refuted shipper, to J.K. Rowling: "Excuse me for thinking you a better writer than you are." Richard Hills: I thought about drawing a few obvious analogies between the shipping wars and some blmlers and blml threads, but the analogies are so obvious that I will leave them as an exercise for the reader. Happy New Year, Richard Hills, The Half-Beard Prince -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 30 23:16:48 2008 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:16:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001201c96a57$d8b661a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: >I'm unable to respond to such an abstract question. My imagination fails >me when I'm trying to construct the case in which the slam-level call >required prepared defence other than just "playing bridge". RHO (Dealer) You 4NT ? Have you agreed with your partner whether Double is: (a) General values? or (b) A major two-suiter? or (c) Something else? Have you agreed with your partner whether 5NT is: (a) A minor two-suiter? or (b) Any two-suiter? or (c) Something else? If you have an agreement with partner, how likely is it that both of you will remember such an agreement, given that RHO's opening bid occurs once every six months? Happy New Year Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Dec 31 08:22:51 2008 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:22:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c96b18$9ba6d940$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2008 10:16 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Maciej Bystry: > >>I'm unable to respond to such an abstract question. <<< +=+ Ah, well, let us concentrate on the change of year. Happy 2009 to all. ~ G ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Dec 31 09:05:11 2008 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:05:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c96b18$9ba6d940$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001001c96b18$9ba6d940$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c96b1e$81286970$83793c50$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+ Ah, well, let us concentrate on the change of year. > Happy 2009 to all. > ~ G ~ +=+ II'll join to that! Regards Sven