From henk at amsterdamned.org Thu Jan 1 01:01:00 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 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 Thu Jan 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for December 2008 Posts From ----- ---- 141 darkbystry (at) wp.pl 98 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 86 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 60 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 41 ehaa (at) starpower.net 36 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 34 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 25 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 23 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 17 svenpran (at) online.no 15 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 12 brian (at) meadows.pair.com 11 karel (at) esatclear.ie 10 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 10 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 9 john (at) asimere.com 7 jrhind (at) therock.bm 7 cibor (at) poczta.fm 6 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 5 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 5 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 4 sater (at) xs4all.nl 4 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 4 blml (at) bridgescore.de 3 richard.willey (at) gmail.com 3 henk (at) ripe.net 3 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 3 bobpark (at) connecttime.net 3 adam (at) irvine.com 3 AlLevy (at) aol.com 2 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 2 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 2 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 2 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 daisy_duck (at) btopenworld.com 1 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 1 swillner (at) nhcc.net 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 jkljkl (at) gmx.de 1 harsanyi (at) t-online.de 1 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 1 ccw.in.nc (at) gmail.com 1 blml (at) dybdal.dk 1 bbickford (at) charter.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Jan 1 01:14:39 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:14:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001001c96b18$9ba6d940$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001001c96b18$9ba6d940$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <495C0AEF.1030501@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Ah, well, let us concentrate on the change of year. Happy 2009 to all. [Nigel] *Happy New Year* From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Jan 1 23:31:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:31:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Melissa Anelli, Harry, a History, page 214: "From a study of detail as minute as punctuation sprang endless and vicious online debates" Richard Hills: Under the ancien regime of the 1997 Lawbook, ACBL Appeals Committees sometimes awarded mixed split scores of the form: N/S +430 E/W Ave- These ACs were viciously attacked for making illegal decisions by blmlers who had made a minute study of detail in the 1997 Definitions, and therefore argued that an artificial adjusted score was not permitted once a result had been achieved at the table. While the 2007 Lawbook broadly continues the ancien regime's rule that artificial adjusted scores are awarded when "no result can be obtained" (2007 Law 12C2), a new exceptional loophole was created in the 2007 Law 12C1(d): "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." Ergo, in the example above, if: (a) the North-South possibilities are not numerous, then (b) +430 may be legally awarded to North-South, but if (c) the East-West possibilities are more numerous, then (d) Ave- may be legally awarded to East-West, because (e) the 2007 Law 12C1(f) states: "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 2 00:51:02 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 15:51:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> Richard Hills wrote: > > Under the ancien regime of the 1997 Lawbook, ACBL Appeals > Committees sometimes awarded mixed split scores of the form: > > N/S +430 > E/W Ave- > > These ACs were viciously attacked for making illegal decisions > by blmlers who had made a minute study of detail in the 1997 > Definitions, and therefore argued that an artificial adjusted > score was not permitted once a result had been achieved at the > table. Here in the Southwest USA the objection was especially vicious (on my part) because the split score was being used as a PR device by supposedly top-level TDs. An offender got to keep his illegal score and the non-offenders were appeased with an Avg+. Both sides were relieved, one for not being penalized, the other for getting redress, leaving both pairs happy. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 2 01:00:29 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:00:29 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Burn: [snip] >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). 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"??? Grattan Endicott, 3rd April 2003: +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what may be considered capable of deceiving. That question is not for the Laws Committee which should confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have pointed several times to the requirement that we must not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are responsible. Your statement about Law 73F2 [2007 Law 73F] is inaccurate. The question is not whether the purpose of the question was to mislead opponent or to obtain technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a false inference was drawn from a question for which the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have ruled consistently that a question asked when the enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a judgement that is specifically one within the remit of the Appeals Committee. ~ 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 2 05:26:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 15:26:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Hermione Granger: "Ron, just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon doesn't mean we all do." EBU Appeals Casebook 2002, Number 8 Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs Board no 14 Dealer East None vulnerable You, South, hold: AT8 A84 A9763 A5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass ? Since this is EBU-land, you are playing Acol. A 1NT rebid would promise 15-16 hcp. A 2NT rebid would promise 17-18 hcp. A 2S raise promises slightly more strength and/or shape than a Standard American 2S raise, since in Acol one cannot raise to 2S with 12-14 hcp balanced, as that is a 1NT opening bid. What walrus do you call? What other walruses do you consider calling? 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 Jan 2 06:36:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:36:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: J.K. Rowling, February 2003 interview, slightly misquoted: "If you need to tell your readers something...there are only two characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept, it's plausible that they have, well Grattan knows pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, she's handy." Sven Pran, 15th May 2003: [snip] >>In my opinion: Yes every contestant has in certain cases an >>"obligation to the field". And if someone really thinks a >>law support for such an obvious matter is necessary they may >>look to Law 74B1 for a starter. This law applies equally to >>every contestant whether they fight for a top placement or >>already have secured a bottom. >> >>Sven Richard Hills, 16th May 2003: >TD: Are you appealing my ruling? >NOS: No, appealing will not improve our score. >TD: OK, because my ruling was so terrible, I now rule that > you committed an infraction of Law 74B1 by not appealing > my previous terrible ruling. I fine you a PP of three > tops. >NOS: Now we are appealing! Grattan Endicott, 17th May 2003: +=+ We were explicit in 1984-7 when entering the words "at his table" in Law 92A, to reflect that a contestant does not have any rights in relation to a ruling at a table at which the contestant was not involved in the play. There is no obligation upon a side to appeal if it is not inclined to do so. There is no duty in Law to have regard for 'the field'; if there were a perceived duty it were a perception of morality. ~ 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Jan 2 07:37:09 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:37:09 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> 2H, wtp If there is going to be a disaster, make sure partner plays the hand Cheers Tony (Sydney) At 03:26 PM 2/01/2009, you wrote: >Hermione Granger: > >"Ron, just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon >doesn't mean we all do." > >EBU Appeals Casebook 2002, Number 8 > >Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs >Board no 14 >Dealer East >None vulnerable > >You, South, hold: > >AT8 >A84 >A9763 >A5 > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass 1D >Pass 1S Pass ? > >Since this is EBU-land, you are playing Acol. > >A 1NT rebid would promise 15-16 hcp. > >A 2NT rebid would promise 17-18 hcp. > >A 2S raise promises slightly more strength and/or shape than a >Standard American 2S raise, since in Acol one cannot raise to >2S with 12-14 hcp balanced, as that is a 1NT opening bid. > >What walrus do you call? >What other walruses do you consider calling? > > >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 darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 07:53:21 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 07:53:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001f01c96ca6$cd5a7c00$15844c59@chello.pl> > 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? I haven't. As I haven't agreed what does double mean after 1S - pass - 4NT (RKCB) - ? As I haven't agreed many other things. > Have you agreed with your partner whether 5NT is: > > (a) A minor two-suiter? or > (b) Any two-suiter? or > (c) Something else? The same as above. > 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? Your question is an answer to another question - why haven't I agreed any special defence in this sequence. And I'm sure you perfectly know that preparing a detailed defence to any possible call you may encounter is absurd, even for top players. Meta-agreements and meta-defences are usually enough instead, and sometimes even mere bridge logic. Rarely it may result in a misunderstanding, so it is a clever strategy not to invent a call at the table in the dubious position if you feel that its meaning may be ambigous. I have a meta-agreement that in the competitive bidding 4NT and 5NT show minor two-suiter if there is bidding space to distinguish between different two-suiters, otherwise it shows any two-suiter (so e.g. 1S-4NT - minors, 4S-4NT - any two-suiter). So of course I would understand 4NT-5NT as any two-suiter and would respond with lowest 3+-card suit to it. I have no meta-agreement about doubling Blackwood in an uncontested auction. It is dangerous without 4 tricks or long suit because the opponents may redouble. I don't know what should double mean in your example. Maybe it should reveal that 4NT was semi-psychic, based on very long, but not solid suit? In 1S-pass-4NT sequence I would understand double as showing a three-suiter with spade void and good side suits. In other sequences it could mean something else. Anyway, even having a meta-agreement "doubles of Blackwood are forbidden" won't be harmful in general. Regards Maciej From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 2 09:08:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 08:08:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000f01c96cb1$5126d380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Melissa Anelli, Harry, a History, page 214: > "From a study of detail as minute as punctuation sprang endless and vicious online debates" > Richard Hills: > Under the ancien regime of the 1997 Lawbook, ACBL Appeals Committees sometimes awarded mixed split scores of the form: > N/S +430 E/W Ave- > These ACs were viciously attacked for making illegal decisions by blmlers who had made a minute study of detail in the 1997 Definitions, and therefore argued that an artificial adjusted score was not permitted once a result had been achieved at the table. > While the 2007 Lawbook broadly continues the ancien regime's rule that artificial adjusted scores are awarded when "no result can be obtained" (2007 Law 12C2), a new exceptional loophole was created in the 2007 Law 12C1(d): > "If the possibilities are numerous or not obvious, the Director may award an artificial adjusted score." > Ergo, in the example above, if: > (a) the North-South possibilities are not numerous, then (b) +430 may be legally awarded to North-South, but if (c) the East-West possibilities are more numerous, then (d) Ave- may be legally awarded to East-West, because (e) the 2007 Law 12C1(f) states: > "The scores awarded to the two sides need not balance." > These ACs were viciously attacked for making illegal decisions by blmlers who had made a minute study of detail in the 1997 Definitions, and therefore argued that an artificial adjusted score was not permitted once a result had been achieved at the table. < (Marvin) Here in the Southwest USA the objection was especially vicious (on my part) because the split score was being used as a PR device by supposedly top-level TDs. An offender got to keep his illegal score and the non-offenders were appeased with an Avg+. Both sides were relieved, one for not being penalized, the other for getting redress, leaving both pairs happy. < +=+ (Quibble - Grattan ) I am inclined to think that Richard has not fully expressed the 2007 position in his remarks. If the position were in truth such as Marvin alleges, the Director would not seem to have fulfilled all the objectives of score adjustment as now laid down in Law 12B1. ~ G ~ +=+ From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Fri Jan 2 09:35:14 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:35:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001f01c96ca6$cd5a7c00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001f01c96ca6$cd5a7c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <495DD1C2.4020206@meteo.fr> Bystry a ?crit : >> Maciej Bystry: >> ... > > I have no meta-agreement about doubling Blackwood in an uncontested auction. > It is dangerous without 4 tricks or long suit because the opponents may > redouble. I don't know what should double mean in your example. Maybe it > should reveal that 4NT was semi-psychic, based on very long, but not solid > suit? In 1S-pass-4NT sequence I would understand double as showing a > three-suiter with spade void and good side suits. In other sequences it > could mean something else. Anyway, even having a meta-agreement "doubles of > Blackwood are forbidden" won't be harmful in general. i know some players who have the agreement about double of bw, duly alerted, explained and steadily successful: to get you mistaken. jpr > > Regards > > Maciej > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 09:32:09 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:32:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> > David Burn: > > [snip] > > >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). > > 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"??? > > Grattan Endicott, 3rd April 2003: > > +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what > may be considered capable of deceiving. That > question is not for the Laws Committee which should > confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words > of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 > the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have > pointed several times to the requirement that we must > not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are > responsible. > Your statement about Law 73F2 [2007 Law 73F] is > inaccurate. The question is not whether the purpose of > the question was to mislead opponent or to obtain > technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge > judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals > Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a > false inference was drawn from a question for which > the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over > many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have > ruled consistently that a question asked when the > enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a > question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a > judgement that is specifically one within the remit of > the Appeals Committee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I'm happy you raised this issue. I agree that what Grattan says is how the laws are usually interpreted. But there are two traps to which this interpretation leads us and forces us to fall in. First one was perfectly demonstrated by Richard's relay sequence example - the player theoretically has no "demonstrable bridge reason" to ask about the calls, he doesn't want to enter the auction. But then there comes the call to which he may want to react (double or not) and he is now forced to ask about this call. That way the laws, interpreted as Grattan stated, force the player to give UI to his partner and to harm his side. So my safety method of asking about the artificial sequence onboard is not so safe, because if the declarer misguesses his play based on the premise "he asks so he's got something interesting in his hand", protests after the hand and the TD/AC are Grattanic, he will get redress and I may even be penalised. To call such situation unfair is an understatement. I'll come back to it later. Second trap is ignoring the word from L73F which is certainly put there on purpose - "innocent". There was a debate on BLML in 2002 about the situation in which the player got an inadequate disclosure about the response to Blackwood, asked a follow-up question, still got inadequate disclosure so asked whether the 5H answer denies the possesion of the Queen of trumps. Grattan (and e.g. David Burn) firmly claimed that such an question is improper, misleading (because the player had the Queen herself), without "demonstrable bridge reason" etc. All right, I don't agree with them (for me *any* information about the opponents' bidding *may* be useful during the play/defence so every question asked in order to obtain this information is *with* demonstrable bridge reason) but that is not important here. We can always adjust the score under L23, but we shouldn't adjust under L73F because the player who failed to provide appropriate disclosure is not "innocent". He provoked the situation himself, breaking the correct procedure. It's similar to the situation in which the declarer orders the first-trick play from dummy in a fraction of second and later whines that his RHO played his singleton in 5 seconds, therefore misleading him. I'm sure that every sane TD would send him to the tree to straight up bananas and the same should happen to the player who fails to provide correct disclosure forcing his opponents to ask additional questions. There are people who want to allow for the random hesitations in order to protect the players who give their holdings away being unable to play in tempo in some situations. I'm strongly opposed to such ideas because playing in tempo is a pure bridge skill. Better players learn to think about dangerous situations earlier and later they are able to play smoothly when the time of the decision comes. Sometimes they lose because not every thing may be foreseen, but sometimes they gain when the declarer misguesses "mislead" by their in-tempo play. Better players have better results - it is fair and just. But asking the questions is not a bridge skill. It is a mechanical procedure for obtaining information. It is a substitute for the complete System Notes the players would provide to their opponents in an ideal world. I agree with restricting the questions only to those relevant, which could have any impact on the run of the current deal. But I don't agree with the policy "ask only if you want to take any action dependent on the answer now". It is an enormous UI generator, resulting in difficult dillemas for the players. Every question may carry UI, but allowing to ask more or less randomly, or always, diminishes the UI effects and allows bridge to be played normally. So in this aspect I have a proposal - to treat all the questions as mechanical actions, guaranteeing no values, and the inferences could be taken only "at one's own risk". We can always catch the deliberate attempts to mislead (e.g. questions like "does he *really* have *five* grapes?") anyway. I wait for the counter-arguments, by now I don't see any. No player should have any advantage just because his partnership has some agreements which they didn't/couldn't disclose on the SC. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 10:09:21 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:09:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001f01c96ca6$cd5a7c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <495DD1C2.4020206@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000b01c96cb9$cd20d3c0$15844c59@chello.pl> i know some players who have the agreement about double of bw, duly alerted, explained and steadily successful: to get you mistaken. jpr Yes, it is known in Poland and called "checkout double". But its appliance has to be cautious, restricted mostly to the deals in which you have your own suit. Against weak opposition you may risk to make such doubles more often, but better opposition should have no problem to redouble and write a top. Even if it won't happen, but they have appropriate agreements, you are giving them more bidding space and it can backfire. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 2 11:02:05 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:02:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <495DE61D.40607@skynet.be> Once again, and Maciej may be proud to hear that's the first time I've said this twice about something, I have absolutely no comments on what Maciej says below. None whatsoever. Completely correct, Maciej. Herman. Bystry wrote: >> David Burn: >> >> [snip] >> >>> 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). >> 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"??? >> >> Grattan Endicott, 3rd April 2003: >> >> +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what >> may be considered capable of deceiving. That >> question is not for the Laws Committee which should >> confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words >> of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 >> the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have >> pointed several times to the requirement that we must >> not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are >> responsible. >> Your statement about Law 73F2 [2007 Law 73F] is >> inaccurate. The question is not whether the purpose of >> the question was to mislead opponent or to obtain >> technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge >> judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals >> Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a >> false inference was drawn from a question for which >> the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over >> many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have >> ruled consistently that a question asked when the >> enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a >> question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a >> judgement that is specifically one within the remit of >> the Appeals Committee. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I'm happy you raised this issue. I agree that what Grattan says is how the > laws are usually interpreted. But there are two traps to which this > interpretation leads us and forces us to fall in. > > First one was perfectly demonstrated by Richard's relay sequence example - > the player theoretically has no "demonstrable bridge reason" to ask about > the calls, he doesn't want to enter the auction. But then there comes the > call to which he may want to react (double or not) and he is now forced to > ask about this call. That way the laws, interpreted as Grattan stated, force > the player to give UI to his partner and to harm his side. So my safety > method of asking about the artificial sequence onboard is not so safe, > because if the declarer misguesses his play based on the premise "he asks so > he's got something interesting in his hand", protests after the hand and the > TD/AC are Grattanic, he will get redress and I may even be penalised. To > call such situation unfair is an understatement. I'll come back to it later. > > Second trap is ignoring the word from L73F which is certainly put there on > purpose - "innocent". There was a debate on BLML in 2002 about the situation > in which the player got an inadequate disclosure about the response to > Blackwood, asked a follow-up question, still got inadequate disclosure so > asked whether the 5H answer denies the possesion of the Queen of trumps. > Grattan (and e.g. David Burn) firmly claimed that such an question is > improper, misleading (because the player had the Queen herself), without > "demonstrable bridge reason" etc. All right, I don't agree with them (for me > *any* information about the opponents' bidding *may* be useful during the > play/defence so every question asked in order to obtain this information is > *with* demonstrable bridge reason) but that is not important here. We can > always adjust the score under L23, but we shouldn't adjust under L73F > because the player who failed to provide appropriate disclosure is not > "innocent". He provoked the situation himself, breaking the correct > procedure. It's similar to the situation in which the declarer orders the > first-trick play from dummy in a fraction of second and later whines that > his RHO played his singleton in 5 seconds, therefore misleading him. I'm > sure that every sane TD would send him to the tree to straight up bananas > and the same should happen to the player who fails to provide correct > disclosure forcing his opponents to ask additional questions. > > There are people who want to allow for the random hesitations in order to > protect the players who give their holdings away being unable to play in > tempo in some situations. I'm strongly opposed to such ideas because playing > in tempo is a pure bridge skill. Better players learn to think about > dangerous situations earlier and later they are able to play smoothly when > the time of the decision comes. Sometimes they lose because not every thing > may be foreseen, but sometimes they gain when the declarer misguesses > "mislead" by their in-tempo play. Better players have better results - it is > fair and just. > > But asking the questions is not a bridge skill. It is a mechanical procedure > for obtaining information. It is a substitute for the complete System Notes > the players would provide to their opponents in an ideal world. I agree with > restricting the questions only to those relevant, which could have any > impact on the run of the current deal. But I don't agree with the policy > "ask only if you want to take any action dependent on the answer now". It is > an enormous UI generator, resulting in difficult dillemas for the players. > Every question may carry UI, but allowing to ask more or less randomly, or > always, diminishes the UI effects and allows bridge to be played normally. > > So in this aspect I have a proposal - to treat all the questions as > mechanical actions, guaranteeing no values, and the inferences could be > taken only "at one's own risk". We can always catch the deliberate attempts > to mislead (e.g. questions like "does he *really* have *five* grapes?") > anyway. I wait for the counter-arguments, by now I don't see any. No player > should have any advantage just because his partnership has some agreements > which they didn't/couldn't disclose on the SC. > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 2 15:05:56 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:05:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <082CD521-A03C-4B64-803E-EBA551FEA4FE@starpower.net> On Jan 1, 2009, at 7:00 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > David Burn: > > [snip] > >> 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). > > 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"??? > > Grattan Endicott, 3rd April 2003: > > +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what > may be considered capable of deceiving. That > question is not for the Laws Committee which should > confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words > of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 > the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have > pointed several times to the requirement that we must > not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are > responsible. > Your statement about Law 73F2 [2007 Law 73F] is > inaccurate. The question is not whether the purpose of > the question was to mislead opponent or to obtain > technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge > judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals > Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a > false inference was drawn from a question for which > the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over > many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have > ruled consistently that a question asked when the > enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a > question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a > judgement that is specifically one within the remit of > the Appeals Committee. What the madmen in David's country seem to have done is to transform the criterion "the enquirer has no [legitimate 'bridge'] interest in the answer" into "the enquirer's immediately subsequent action will not vary depending on the answer". "Madmen" is not too strong a word for those who imagine the second to be synonymous with the first. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From axman22 at hotmail.com Fri Jan 2 16:22:07 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 09:22:07 -0600 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Bystry" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 02:32 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> David Burn: >> >> [snip] >> >> >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). >> >> 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"??? >> >> Grattan Endicott, 3rd April 2003: >> >> +=+ It is for the Appeals Committee to judge what >> may be considered capable of deceiving. That >> question is not for the Laws Committee which should >> confine itself to interpreting the meaning of the words >> of the laws, not their application to cases. Since 1991 >> the minutes show that members of the WBFLC have >> pointed several times to the requirement that we must >> not trespass into the areas for which other bodies are >> responsible. >> Your statement about Law 73F2 [2007 Law 73F] is >> inaccurate. The question is not whether the purpose of >> the question was to mislead opponent or to obtain >> technical advantage; the judgement, which is a bridge >> judgement ultimately in the hands of the Appeals >> Committee not the Laws Committee, is whether a >> false inference was drawn from a question for which >> the enquirer had no demonstrable bridge reason. Over >> many years WBF and EBL Appeals Committees have >> ruled consistently that a question asked when the >> enquirer has no interest in the answer at the time is a >> question asked without demonstrable bridge reason, a >> judgement that is specifically one within the remit of >> the Appeals Committee. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > I'm happy you raised this issue. I agree that what Grattan says is how the > laws are usually interpreted. But there are two traps to which this > interpretation leads us and forces us to fall in. > > First one was perfectly demonstrated by Richard's relay sequence example - > the player theoretically has no "demonstrable bridge reason" to ask about > the calls, he doesn't want to enter the auction. But then there comes the > call to which he may want to react (double or not) and he is now forced to > ask about this call. That way the laws, interpreted as Grattan stated, > force > the player to give UI to his partner and to harm his side. So my safety > method of asking about the artificial sequence onboard is not so safe, > because if the declarer misguesses his play based on the premise "he asks > so > he's got something interesting in his hand", protests after the hand and > the > TD/AC are Grattanic, he will get redress and I may even be penalised. To > call such situation unfair is an understatement. I'll come back to it > later. > > Second trap is ignoring the word from L73F which is certainly put there on > purpose - "innocent". There was a debate on BLML in 2002 about the > situation > in which the player got an inadequate disclosure about the response to > Blackwood, asked a follow-up question, still got inadequate disclosure so > asked whether the 5H answer denies the possesion of the Queen of trumps. > Grattan (and e.g. David Burn) firmly claimed that such an question is > improper, misleading (because the player had the Queen herself), without > "demonstrable bridge reason" etc. All right, I don't agree with them (for > me > *any* information about the opponents' bidding *may* be useful during the > play/defence so every question asked in order to obtain this information > is > *with* demonstrable bridge reason) but that is not important here. We can > always adjust the score under L23, but we shouldn't adjust under L73F > because the player who failed to provide appropriate disclosure is not > "innocent". He provoked the situation himself, breaking the correct > procedure. It's similar to the situation in which the declarer orders the > first-trick play from dummy in a fraction of second and later whines that > his RHO played his singleton in 5 seconds, therefore misleading him. I'm > sure that every sane TD would send him to the tree to straight up bananas > and the same should happen to the player who fails to provide correct > disclosure forcing his opponents to ask additional questions. > > There are people who want to allow for the random hesitations in order to > protect the players who give their holdings away being unable to play in > tempo in some situations. I'm strongly opposed to such ideas because > playing > in tempo is a pure bridge skill. Better players learn to think about > dangerous situations earlier and later they are able to play smoothly when > the time of the decision comes. Sometimes they lose because not every > thing > may be foreseen, but sometimes they gain when the declarer misguesses > "mislead" by their in-tempo play. Better players have better results - it > is > fair and just. > > But asking the questions is not a bridge skill. It is a mechanical > procedure > for obtaining information. It is a substitute for the complete System > Notes > the players would provide to their opponents in an ideal world. I agree > with > restricting the questions only to those relevant, which could have any > impact on the run of the current deal. But I don't agree with the policy > "ask only if you want to take any action dependent on the answer now". It > is > an enormous UI generator, resulting in difficult dillemas for the players. > Every question may carry UI, but allowing to ask more or less randomly, or > always, diminishes the UI effects and allows bridge to be played normally. > So in this aspect I have a proposal - to treat all the questions as > mechanical actions, guaranteeing no values, As I understand this, there exists a problem of players surrounding the asking of questions. And the problem can be solved by deeming that no UI arises from the asking of questions. The relevant words are "to treat all the questions as mechanical actions, guaranteeing* no values". >and the inferences could be > taken only "at one's own risk". We can always catch the deliberate > attempts > to mislead (e.g. questions like "does he *really* have *five* grapes?") > anyway. > I wait for the counter-arguments, by now I don't see any. To my thinking the question and its asking are always a source of inferences; inferences that do not arise from call or play. Such inferences may, or not, be material. Declaring that they "guarantee no values" does not make it so. And implementing such fiat should have the effect of exacerbating to the nth degree the failing of L77. *a non sequitur regards roger pewick > No player > should have any advantage just because his partnership has some agreements > which they didn't/couldn't disclose on the SC. > Regards > Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 16:45:09 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 16:45:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <495DE61D.40607@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl> > Once again, and Maciej may be proud to hear that's the first time I've > said this twice about something, I have absolutely no comments on what > Maciej says below. None whatsoever. Completely correct, Maciej. > Herman. I only hope that your support isn't equal with a kiss of death ;-) Anyway, thanks. By the way, I've just found something connected to the topic which left me very saddened. Following Richard's passion to retrospective quotations: [Grattan, 4th November 2002] I think the step you have missed in mounting your pedestal is that the *laws* do *not* call for provision to opponents of any information not relevant to the actual calls made in the auction, other than the general listing of agreements required in 40E. The right to know inferred in the laws is a limited right, a retrospective duty to have been informed of agreements before they are put to use, *in such manner as the SO specifies*, and a right to an expansion of that information in reply to enquiry about what has actually happened. [/Grattan] What is so saddening? I agree with Grattan that only relevant things should be disclosed during the auction/play. Here I differ from Eric and Herman, although I could support their postulates (at least they were such in 2002) to enable asking during the auction for the relevant future calls - it is completely impractical to ask about all possible cases before the play commences. I agree with Grattan that it is futile to talk about unconditional rights. We are always restricted by the reality. If trying to reach an utopia makes things worse, it is wiser to stop earlier, in the point of a reasonable compromise. But I don't agree that this compromise may leave any holes which could result in any harm to bridge players who obey the rules dutifully. To be more precise: - there is a set of partnership understandings (let's call it "system" for convenience) - every pair has an obligation to make their full "system" available to the opponents - the opponents have the right to know the "system" although this right is not unconditional in a sense that there are appropriate time periods in which they may obtain the knowledge - nevertheless the opponents must be able to obtain this knowledge, there must be a time period in which they can achieve this - if during an auction/play a moment comes in which an opponent has to make a decision, he should be in knowledge of all the relevant parts of the "system" As the laws are now, the players are theoretically able to obtain anything relevant to the auction prior to the moment of a decision (by questioning, SC, pre-play disclosure), some general parts of the "system" (by SC, pre-play disclosure) and some specific parts of the "system" which they believe to be possibly useful (pre-play disclosure). Sounds good on the surface. But the problems are present and I'll try to enlist them: - most bridge events are played in the form of pairs tournaments, the round duration is limited and so the time for the pre-play disclosure is limited. It is absolutely impossible to ask about all the agreements which may later appear relevant. It would be much more time-consuming than simple question during the auction anyway. - regulations regarding the disclosure are stated at a whim of RAs. I agree that such things like system and alert regulations, SC formats and language and some other should be their domain. But there should be at least a minimal part of the "system" which *the laws* explicitly force to be pre-disclosed. Otherwise we may have a quagmire for the players in different NBOs. In Poland there is *no* obligation to have any SC and *no* obligation to pre-alert anything. Our only sure source of information is L20F1. If that was left to the RAs whim too, we could find ourselves in a situation in which no (sic) disclosure could be obtained unless the opponents appeared to be magnanimous. Now I know that the WBF may have deep in the *** what is happening to Polish players. I will hear "you can change your bridge authoritities" (yeah, sure), "you can appeal to the external court" (yeah, sure), "nobody forces you to play, ekhm, bridge" (oh, this is realistic at last). But if the WBFLC members really care for the good of the game (which is more or less equal with the good of the players) wouldn't it be sensible to state some minimal requirements in the laws, so that the RAs couldn't deprive their members of something which is essential for the game of bridge? - obtaining disclosure through questioning is unfortunately flawed by UI complications. In some situations the player is torn between obtaining something that is necessary and trying to guess because the question could easily restrict his partner's options. One way or another he is screwed. Modern tendencies regarding alerting rules make things even worse, totally forbidding alerting of some types of calls. This problem is fundamental for F2F bridge, in my opinion most fundamental. Ignoring it is not a solution because everyday many players are harmed by it. It is easy to see that there is unfortunately a great hole in the present laws between this statement - if during an auction/play a moment comes in which an opponent has to make a decision, he should be in knowledge of all the relevant parts of the "system" and the reality. As I have written, in my opinion this hole is the most important problem of F2F bridge. So it would be normal to expect the lawmakers to care for it and try to solve it, right? Naive anyone who thinks so. The lawmakers are aware of this problem already for many years. The sophistication of bidding systems is something that has gradually risen. They had at least last 10 years to try to do something. Instead they washed their hands, pinned the troubles on the NBOs and were happy to make some minor corrections in the laws' wording (commendable) plus changing the nebulous L27 to help some nincompoops to recover from their mistakes. And who the h*** should be responsible for solving the hardest problems, if not the most knowledgable and experienced people in the bridge world? That is exactly what makes me so sad. If those people don't want to solve the problem, nobody will. And for the next X years we will have to see frustrated players, helpless TDs and disoriented RAs trying to find ad hoc solutions which in the best case will be a choice of lesser evil. "If you lose hope, somehow you lose the vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you go on in spite of it all. And so today I still have a dream." Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 17:00:38 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:00:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001301c96cf3$416d3aa0$15844c59@chello.pl> > > So in this aspect I have a proposal - to treat all the questions as > > mechanical actions, guaranteeing no values, > > As I understand this, there exists a problem of players surrounding the > asking of questions. And the problem can be solved by deeming that no UI > arises from the asking of questions. The relevant words are "to treat all > the questions as mechanical actions, guaranteeing* no values". No, apparently you didn't understand anything I have written. I haven't written about UI, but about misleading. It is obvious that the statement "from now the questions do not carry any UI" would be absurd. But the statement "from now the *opponents* draw the inferences from the questions solely at their own risk" is certainly not absurd. In this sense I meant treating the questions as mechanical actions, not guaranteeing any values or bridge reason (the earlier form "guaranteeing no values" was not correct, sorry). > regards > roger pewick Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 2 17:10:25 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:10:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy In-Reply-To: <000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <495DE61D.40607@skynet.be> <000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Bystry wrote: > By the way, I've just found something connected to the topic which > left me > very saddened. Following Richard's passion to retrospective > quotations: > > [Grattan, 4th November 2002] > > I think the step you have missed in mounting > your pedestal is that the *laws* do *not* call for > provision to opponents of any information not > relevant to the actual calls made in the auction, > other than the general listing of agreements > required in 40E. The right to know inferred in > the laws is a limited right, a retrospective duty > to have been informed of agreements before > they are put to use, *in such manner as the SO > specifies*, and a right to an expansion of that > information in reply to enquiry about what has > actually happened. > > [/Grattan] > > What is so saddening? > > I agree with Grattan that only relevant things should be disclosed > during > the auction/play. Here I differ from Eric and Herman, although I could > support their postulates (at least they were such in 2002) to > enable asking > during the auction for the relevant future calls - it is completely > impractical to ask about all possible cases before the play commences. This rather misrepresents my position. I agree absolutely that "only relevant things should be disclosed". I merely assert that "relevant things" is a rather larger class than "things that must be determined in order for me to select my immediate next action". Would anyone argue that you should not be entitled to know what your opponent played to the current trick unless there is some possibility that it might affect what you play to the immediate next one? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 18:06:49 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:06:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl><495DE61D.40607@skynet.be><000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000701c96cfc$80b9fa00$15844c59@chello.pl> > > I agree with Grattan that only relevant things should be disclosed > > during > > the auction/play. Here I differ from Eric and Herman, although I could > > support their postulates (at least they were such in 2002) to > > enable asking > > during the auction for the relevant future calls - it is completely > > impractical to ask about all possible cases before the play commences. > > This rather misrepresents my position. I agree absolutely that "only > relevant things should be disclosed". I merely assert that "relevant > things" is a rather larger class than "things that must be determined > in order for me to select my immediate next action". I apologize if I really misrepresented your position. I had no such intent, I think the problem lies in the understanding of the word "relevant". I used it in the way it is used in L20F1, which was many times confirmed by the lawmakers. I know that you are influenced by ACBL culture and I generally see nothing bad in such approach. I would be a last one to forbid anyone to disclose more than is required, I even do it myself on some occasions. And I would be ashamed of myself if I denied any answer and it would later appear that I was wrong and it was really relevant. I merely believe that there should be some restrictions on questions in the laws, otherwise some people could abuse given rights. They do it now anyway, allowing for more would result in more abuse. Remember that not everywhere you can find good TDs who would cope with such abuse appropriately. I hope that in spite of this little disagreement (which is rather technical, not substantial) I could find some support from you regarding the rest of my recent contribution, I value your opinion highly. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 2 19:29:18 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 13:29:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy In-Reply-To: <000701c96cfc$80b9fa00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl><495DE61D.40607@skynet.be><000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl> <000701c96cfc$80b9fa00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Jan 2, 2009, at 12:06 PM, Bystry wrote: >>> I agree with Grattan that only relevant things should be disclosed >>> during >>> the auction/play. Here I differ from Eric and Herman, although I >>> could >>> support their postulates (at least they were such in 2002) to >>> enable asking >>> during the auction for the relevant future calls - it is completely >>> impractical to ask about all possible cases before the play >>> commences. >> >> This rather misrepresents my position. I agree absolutely that "only >> relevant things should be disclosed". I merely assert that "relevant >> things" is a rather larger class than "things that must be determined >> in order for me to select my immediate next action". > > I apologize if I really misrepresented your position. I had no such > intent, > I think the problem lies in the understanding of the word > "relevant". I used > it in the way it is used in L20F1, which was many times confirmed > by the > lawmakers. I know that you are influenced by ACBL culture and I > generally > see nothing bad in such approach. I would be a last one to forbid > anyone to > disclose more than is required, I even do it myself on some > occasions. And I > would be ashamed of myself if I denied any answer and it would > later appear > that I was wrong and it was really relevant. I merely believe that > there > should be some restrictions on questions in the laws, otherwise > some people > could abuse given rights. They do it now anyway, allowing for more > would > result in more abuse. Remember that not everywhere you can find > good TDs who > would cope with such abuse appropriately. > > I hope that in spite of this little disagreement (which is rather > technical, > not substantial) I could find some support from you regarding the > rest of my > recent contribution, I value your opinion highly. That I cited only a small portion of Maciej's original message may be taken to imply that I did not disagree with the rest of his contribution, in which he does a very good job of delineating the problem. I would not describe myself as a particularly good, knowledgeable or experienced TD, but I do not seem, in real life, to have a problem distinguishing between rights being properly exercised and rights being used as a justification for abuse. You prevent players from abusing their rights, IMO, by proactively insuring that they do not abuse those rights, not by retracting those rights to the detriment of the majority who do not abuse them. I find no difficulty offering my players the right to any information covered by the Kaplan paradigm (which is how I interpret L40A1(b)) while simultaneously insuring that any attempt to "abuse" those rights meets with appropriate action. I have several times in the past offered the analogy to L20F1-2. It grants players the right to obtain a review of the auction whenever it is their turn to bid or play. I have pointed out that notwithstanding this "absolute right" to obtain a review, if they exercise this right every single time it is their turn to bid or play they shall be summarily thrown out of the game and asked not to return. Does anyone have a problem with that? Or do we all have some feel for the difference between exercising a right legimately and abusing it? Of course we may not draw the dividing line in exactly the same place, but I'm confident that we would come fairly close. I merely suggest that what we can readily and obviously do for the right to obtain a review we can similarly do for the right to obtain full disclosure of the opponents' agreements. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at dybdal.dk Fri Jan 2 20:52:43 2009 From: blml at dybdal.dk (Jesper Dybdal) Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 20:52:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <71h1l45uhkbg6v75mj9nm1sln49qvliv3t@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <71h1l45uhkbg6v75mj9nm1sln49qvliv3t@nuser.dybdal.dk> Message-ID: <37rsl49l5omm48jqkp3prosvn17ikgj53q@nuser.dybdal.dk> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:39:05 +0100, I wrote: >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). I have now used part of my Christmas vacation to install and study Mailman. So now I know much more about running mailing lists, and it seems as if it would probably work fine. I will not definitely offer to host BLML before I've done some experiments to judge how the load on my connection will affect my own use of it - and I see no reason to disturb BLML with such experiments until and unless it seems likely that my possible solution is the best possibility. My own view is that I don't much like using free services for important things. Free services tend to either disappear, become unreliable, stop being free, or become infested with advertisements. A (non-free) commercial service would have the primary advantage over my server that the hardware would be of professional server quality and managed by a staff that is present at all times. The advantage of my server would primarily be that I have full control over it, and that it will probably be easier for Henk and I to arrange a smooth transition than it will if a commercial company is involved. Regardless of where the list itself ends up, I am certainly willing to provide a home to the old archives and the rtflb.org website in case the list's future home does not also offer that. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark. http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 2 23:00:32 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 23:00:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? Message-ID: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> Reading the archives I encountered an interesting case - S is declaring a slam and that is a two-card ending: Dummy S 102 Def 1 S 93 Declarer S 87 (Def 2 immaterial) The lead is in dummy, but the Declarer plays S8 from hand and Def 1 covers with 9. The near-consensus on BLML was adjusting the score of the declaring side to -1 under L23 and leaving the defenders with the table result. The reasons were unclear, some said that according to L53A Declarer's LOOT ceases to be an irregularity after the Def 1 accepts (so for the defenders L12 does not apply), some invoked "irrational, wild and gambling" (now "serious error or wild or gambling") and classified Def 1 condoning as such. My personal opinion is that the defenders should get redress (Eric was claiming so and possibly someone else), but stating this opinion is certainly not my reason to bother the list with this case again. I observed that nobody raised an interesting issue. Playing from the wrong hand is a no-lose strategy: a) if the defenders notice that, slam is down as it was anyway b) if Def 1 covers and doesn't realize what happened, slam is made (big profit) c) if Def 1 covers but later realizes what happened, slam is down for the Declarer, but made for the defenders So b) is basically enough to rule against the Declarer under L23. John Probst remarked that c) may be also profitable because worse score for the opponents may result in the Declarer achieving a better tournament place in the end. But there is also an unnoticed point: d) in Team play, if Def 1 covers but later realizes what happened, slam is down for the Declarer, made for the defenders, so the Declarer automaticly gains (the defenders' loss accrues to his side) So what should take precedence, denying all the gain to the Declarer side by applying L23 and adjusting the score for both sides, or allowing his side to keep some part of the gain in order to punish the defenders for their careless mistake? Regards Maciej From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 3 01:00:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 00:00:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <001601c96d36$5d1e05c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 10:00 PM Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? > Reading the archives I encountered an interesting case - S is declaring a > slam and that is a two-card ending: > > Dummy > S 102 > > Def 1 > S 93 > > Declarer > S 87 > > (Def 2 immaterial) > > The lead is in dummy, but the Declarer plays S8 from hand and Def 1 covers > with 9. > ..................................... (snip)......................................... > So what should take precedence, denying all the gain to the Declarer side > by > applying L23 and adjusting the score for both sides, or allowing his side > to > keep some part of the gain in order to punish the defenders for their > careless mistake? > +=+ When the Director decides to award an adjusted score as authorized by Law 23, I would say that Law 12B1 kicks in to tell the Director what he is to aim for in his adjustment. Defender has made a serious error but it is related to the infraction. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From henk at ripe.net Sat Jan 3 09:06:21 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:06:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <495F1C7D.2000908@ripe.net> Hi all, Happy new year! > 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. OK, there are more sites, lists, whatever running on this machine, maintained by colleagues. The status as of today is that a number of them have decided to find another location for the box, in a data center somewhere. With the good relations we have in the ISP world, this is can be done for a very small annual fee (the current offer is about euro 10 per person, per year). If this works out as planned, I'll simply leave the list on the machine and nobody will notice anything (except for a short service interruption when the machine is moved). I've kept all mails offering help (thanks all!) in case this doesn't work out. Stay tuned for more news :-) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From henk at ripe.net Sat Jan 3 09:06:21 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 09:06:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML In-Reply-To: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> Message-ID: <495F1C7D.2000908@ripe.net> Hi all, Happy new year! > 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. OK, there are more sites, lists, whatever running on this machine, maintained by colleagues. The status as of today is that a number of them have decided to find another location for the box, in a data center somewhere. With the good relations we have in the ISP world, this is can be done for a very small annual fee (the current offer is about euro 10 per person, per year). If this works out as planned, I'll simply leave the list on the machine and nobody will notice anything (except for a short service interruption when the machine is moved). I've kept all mails offering help (thanks all!) in case this doesn't work out. Stay tuned for more news :-) 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Jan 3 11:07:19 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:07:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy References: <002b01c96cb4$9a4201e0$15844c59@chello.pl><495DE61D.40607@skynet.be><000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl><000701c96cfc$80b9fa00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000d01c96d8b$10328d80$15844c59@chello.pl> > I would not describe myself as a particularly good, knowledgeable or > experienced TD, but I do not seem, in real life, to have a problem > distinguishing between rights being properly exercised and rights > being used as a justification for abuse. You prevent players from > abusing their rights, IMO, by proactively insuring that they do not > abuse those rights, not by retracting those rights to the detriment > of the majority who do not abuse them. Si. But you should be aware that my solution results in exactly the same relevant information passed. If the player withholds something important, the score will be adjusted. I don't think that in practice we would differ regarding "relevance" and "importance" of the information. The only real difference is strictly psychological. I trust the explainers much more than the questioners. That is solely based on my own experience. Your experience may lead you to the opposite view and I accept that. I have nothing against light bending of the L20F1 wording to promote your view in any club (or in the whole ACBL). Especially if its members are used to answer to any, even not wholly appropriate, questions and don't abuse the right to ask themselves. I prefer my interpretation because it allows me to give PPs even for single cases of abuse, whereas you would have to wait for repeated violences. But of course I would even more harshly penalize those who withhold relevant information. > I find no difficulty offering > my players the right to any information covered by the Kaplan > paradigm (which is how I interpret L40A1(b)) while simultaneously > insuring that any attempt to "abuse" those rights meets with > appropriate action. You must be aware that in Poland bridge is not played in clubs. Local tournaments have some similarity, but things like discipline, regulating participation etc do not exist or exist in much reduced scope. It could easily weight on your opinion if you happened to attend to one of such tournaments. Regards Maciej From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Jan 3 20:31:27 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 14:31:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented Message-ID: <495FBD0F.6030703@nhcc.net> [An old thread. I was traveling in September and am still not caught up, but I'm confident no one wrote anything like my answer.] From: "Stefanie Rohan" Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:42:03 +0100 > When you know that the opponents are having a cock-up, or that they are in > unfamiliar territory, it is unethical to ask them for an explanation with > the purpose of creating UI for their side. Which law or regulation says that? Contrariwise, why isn't failing to ask such a question, if you think it will put the opponents into a restrictive UI situation, dumping? From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 4 05:26:50 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:26:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> <200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > 2H, wtp This is a bizarre choice; you're committing to 2N on a combined 22 count and still haven't limited your hand Personally I'd bid 2N; yes it coud be a 22 count; but I'm limited now. > > If there is going to be a disaster, make sure partner > plays the hand > > Cheers > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > At 03:26 PM 2/01/2009, you wrote: >>Hermione Granger: >> >>"Ron, just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon >>doesn't mean we all do." >> >>EBU Appeals Casebook 2002, Number 8 >> >>Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs >>Board no 14 >>Dealer East >>None vulnerable >> >>You, South, hold: >> >>AT8 >>A84 >>A9763 >>A5 >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> Pass 1D >>Pass 1S Pass ? >> >>Since this is EBU-land, you are playing Acol. >> >>A 1NT rebid would promise 15-16 hcp. >> >>A 2NT rebid would promise 17-18 hcp. >> >>A 2S raise promises slightly more strength and/or shape than a >>Standard American 2S raise, since in Acol one cannot raise to >>2S with 12-14 hcp balanced, as that is a 1NT opening bid. >> >>What walrus do you call? >>What other walruses do you consider calling? >> >> >>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 john at asimere.com Sun Jan 4 05:34:08 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:34:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <87A276B4E94C4F7EAFAE5F9E5487EDD1@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 10:00 PM Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? > Reading the archives I encountered an interesting case - S is declaring a > slam and that is a two-card ending: > > Dummy > S 102 > > Def 1 > S 93 > > Declarer > S 87 > > (Def 2 immaterial) > > The lead is in dummy, but the Declarer plays S8 from hand and Def 1 covers > with 9. > > The near-consensus on BLML was adjusting the score of the declaring side > to -1 under L23 and leaving the defenders with the table result. The > reasons > were unclear, some said that according to L53A Declarer's LOOT ceases to > be > an irregularity after the Def 1 accepts (so for the defenders L12 does not > apply), some invoked "irrational, wild and gambling" (now "serious error > or > wild or gambling") and classified Def 1 condoning as such. > > My personal opinion is that the defenders should get redress (Eric was > claiming so and possibly someone else), but stating this opinion is > certainly not my reason to bother the list with this case again. I > observed > that nobody raised an interesting issue. > > Playing from the wrong hand is a no-lose strategy: > > a) if the defenders notice that, slam is down as it was anyway > b) if Def 1 covers and doesn't realize what happened, slam is made (big > profit) > c) if Def 1 covers but later realizes what happened, slam is down for the > Declarer, but made for the defenders > > So b) is basically enough to rule against the Declarer under L23. John > Probst remarked that c) may be also profitable because worse score for the > opponents may result in the Declarer achieving a better tournament place > in > the end. But there is also an unnoticed point: > > d) in Team play, if Def 1 covers but later realizes what happened, slam is > down for the Declarer, made for the defenders, so the Declarer automaticly > gains (the defenders' loss accrues to his side) > > So what should take precedence, denying all the gain to the Declarer side > by > applying L23 and adjusting the score for both sides, or allowing his side > to > keep some part of the gain in order to punish the defenders for their > careless mistake? I'm always against this form of split score. in cheating cases. If I know you're going to rule this way the Probst cheat gains, knowing that his opponents will get a less good score than they would have done had I not cheated. "One off, both ways, you cheating bastards" is the only possible result. John > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Jan 4 05:36:07 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 04:36:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <495F1C7D.2000908@ripe.net> Message-ID: <561C455BBE8D4551A4FABBE159B110A5@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "blml" Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 8:06 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The future of BLML > Hi all, > > Happy new year! > >> 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. > > OK, there are more sites, lists, whatever running on this machine, > maintained > by colleagues. The status as of today is that a number of them have > decided > to find another location for the box, in a data center somewhere. With > the > good relations we have in the ISP world, this is can be done for a very > small annual fee (the current offer is about euro 10 per person, per > year). OK guys, we all need to send Henk a groat. (Enjoy) John > If this works out as planned, I'll simply leave the list on the machine > and > nobody will notice anything (except for a short service interruption when > the machine is moved). I've kept all mails offering help (thanks all!) in > case this doesn't work out. > > Stay tuned for more news :-) > > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 4 06:10:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:10:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] The future of BLML References: <494667A5.2010001@ripe.net> <495F1C7D.2000908@ripe.net> <561C455BBE8D4551A4FABBE159B110A5@JOHN> Message-ID: <001101c96e2a$bac34150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:36 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The future of BLML > OK guys, we all need to send Henk a groat. (Enjoy) John > +=+ Agreed +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 4 06:18:33 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 05:18:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <87A276B4E94C4F7EAFAE5F9E5487EDD1@JOHN> Message-ID: <001801c96e2c$0167b540$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? (Maciej) So what should take precedence, denying all the gain to the Declarer side by applying L23 and adjusting the score for both sides, or allowing his side to keep some part of the gain in order to punish the defenders for their careless mistake? > (John) I'm always against this form of split score. in cheating cases. If I know you're going to rule this way the Probst cheat gains, knowing that his opponents will get a less good score than they would have done had I not cheated. "One off, both ways, you cheating bastards" is the only possible result. John >> +=+ I doubt, John, that you can justify this as complying with the standards of Law 12B1. Further, in my opinion the defender's error is related to the infraction and therefore denied application of Law 12C1(b). ~ G ~ +=+ From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Sun Jan 4 06:41:08 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:41:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> <200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 03:26 PM 4/01/2009, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tony Musgrove" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 6:37 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > 2H, wtp > >This is a bizarre choice; you're committing to 2N on a combined 22 count and >still haven't limited your hand >Personally I'd bid 2N; yes it coud be a 22 count; but I'm limited now. > > > > If there is going to be a disaster, make sure partner > > plays the hand > > I have played with this guy before. He is going to bid 3NT with the missing diamond honours and KQ of clubs. His spade bid was a psyche (or Richard has lost the plot). Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > Cheers > > > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > > At 03:26 PM 2/01/2009, you wrote: > >>Hermione Granger: > >> > >>"Ron, just because you have the emotional range of a teaspoon > >>doesn't mean we all do." > >> > >>EBU Appeals Casebook 2002, Number 8 > >> > >>Swiss [matchpoint] Pairs > >>Board no 14 > >>Dealer East > >>None vulnerable > >> > >>You, South, hold: > >> > >>AT8 > >>A84 > >>A9763 > >>A5 > >> > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > >> Pass 1D > >>Pass 1S Pass ? > >> > >>Since this is EBU-land, you are playing Acol. > >> > >>A 1NT rebid would promise 15-16 hcp. > >> > >>A 2NT rebid would promise 17-18 hcp. > >> > >>A 2S raise promises slightly more strength and/or shape than a > >>Standard American 2S raise, since in Acol one cannot raise to > >>2S with 12-14 hcp balanced, as that is a 1NT opening bid. > >> > >>What walrus do you call? > >>What other walruses do you consider calling? > >> > >> > >>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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Jan 4 10:47:28 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 10:47:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> <200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> [Richard] None vulnerable You, South, hold: AT8 A84 A9763 A5 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Pass Pass 1D Pass 1S Pass ? [Tony] > > > 2H, wtp [John] > >This is a bizarre choice; you're committing to 2N on a combined 22 count and > >still haven't limited your hand > >Personally I'd bid 2N; yes it coud be a 22 count; but I'm limited now. [Tony] > I have played with this guy before. He is going to bid 3NT > with the missing diamond honours and KQ of clubs. His > spade bid was a psyche (or Richard has lost the plot). [Meeee] Complete lack of table presence guys. You should bid 1NT, wait for partner's hesitant 2S, raise it to 3S and reach 4S this way. Thanks to that you will make the opponents aggrieved, give some work to the bored TD and AC, some entertainment for the Casebook readers and cause heated discussion on the BLML (at least once, this time things look much calmer). You are reasonably safe in the UK because John Bulls suffer from the excess of testosterone, they rarely pass with 5-7 HCP and 5 spades, and if they do, later they prefer to play 1NT -3 than 2S=. So the mercyful AC will decide that 2S is positive and that less than 30% of your peers will pass after 2S. Heh, I wonder if Gold-Townsend are really English ;-) Seriously, I hate such hands. Playing strong 1NT I would open it, but only because of T8 in spades (and 8 in hearts). Without this intermediates I would open 1D and later try to support partner's major (or bid 2D after 2C, in my system it is GF). So now 1NT/2NT is barely an option for me, I would rather choose 3S with 2S being possible (but too pessimistic), in spite of the fact that it should promise 4 spades. Regards Bystry From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 4 12:07:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 11:07:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] something new References: <48A5F0B3.5070005@aol.com> <000301c9005b$55a6aba0$0202a8c0@Mildred> <003701c9005d$ee91a250$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A857CE.8080706@skynet.be> <001001c90093$12bdf040$0202a8c0@Mildred> <48A88901.9030706@skynet.be> <48A8A1AD.7090101@NTLworld.com> <48A940CE.6090802@skynet.be> <001201c901a7$607c87f0$4001a8c0@JOHN> <2b1e598b0808182223j327f0a65xf59cf6935a31bb94@mail.gmail.com><48AB01D0.9040600@skynet.be> <000301c9022a$84003d60$8c00b820$@no> <003a01c90253$cd75f290$4001a8c0@JOHN> <000801c902a1$6905d570$3b118050$@no> <48ABEEAE.4020703@NTLworld.com> <48AC4FC7.9010301@skynet.be> <48AC7590.5040300@NTLworld.com> <48AC8943.6040207@skynet.be> <000c01c90316$c75af2c0$5610d840$@no> <48ADB04F.5030805@skynet.be><000801c903ca$fa3e6500$eebb2f00$@no><48AEF66B.80604@skynet.be> <003b01c90488$b409bc10$0202a8c0@Mildred><001001c9048f$2c43e010$4001a8c0@JOHN> <48AF354C.8070101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002701c96e5c$d3668e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] something new <-----------------omissis-----------------------> Do we really want the laws to be a way we create an edge for players who have better knowledge of the laws? > Grattan, please reconsider. > +=+ The basis of my comments is different from that of many other subscribers here. I do not express what I would like the law to be, nor what I like to believe the law to be. My concern, out of the office I hold, is for what I understand the law actually to say, and for the corporate interpretations of the WBFLC where I have them on record. If I may remind readers of my stated position on the subject it is: ................................................................................ "The Director must explain to the player his rights and responsibilities under the law. The laws define correct procedure and in my opinion they identify and restrict what the players should expect to hear about the laws from the Director, specifically it is the Director's duty to 'advise the players of their rights and responsibilities thereunder'. See Law 81C2." ................................................................................. Since this is written in law there is no scope for me to 'reconsider'. Nor if a player is duly informed of his rights and responsibilities do I see any need of more. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From cibor at poczta.fm Sun Jan 4 12:09:17 2009 From: cibor at poczta.fm (Konrad Ciborowski) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 12:09:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:47 AM Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard] > > None vulnerable > > You, South, hold: > > AT8 > A84 > A9763 > A5 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1D > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Seriously, I hate such hands. Playing strong 1NT I would open it, but only > because of T8 in spades (and 8 in hearts). So holding A10x Axx Axxxx Ax you open 1D playing strong NT? Matkoboskoczestochosko... BIIIIIIIG bridge... Then somebody else suggested opening 1D and reversing 2H and says "WTP". Doctor, please! How about playing bridge for a change? This a perfectly normal, strong NT hand so it should be bid as such (thus 1D - 1S - 1NT playing weak NT). Anything else is nuts. An anti-positional club holding is only a very small distortion. Still this hand is _a lot_ closer to the ideal hand for a strong NT (with the major suits 8's or without) than to 4S-5D or to 3=4=5=1 you good people are planning to show. "Partner, I must make some inventive bid on every board or die". Konrad Ciborowski Krak?w, Poland Dzwon tanio do wszystkich! Sprawdz >> http://link.interia.pl/f200a From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Jan 4 14:18:28 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:18:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> <431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <000901c96e6e$eea94b60$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Richard] > > None vulnerable > > You, South, hold: > > AT8 > A84 > A9763 > A5 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1D > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Seriously, I hate such hands. Playing strong 1NT I would open it, but only > because of T8 in spades (and 8 in hearts). [Conrado Ciborozzo] So holding A10x Axx Axxxx Ax you open 1D playing strong NT? Matkoboskoczestochosko... BIIIIIIIG bridge... [Mr. Bystryheim] You are allowed by ... hmm, freedom of net-speech? to state your opinions ;-) Although you partially misunderstood me, I stressed the actual holdings and wrote "Without this intermediates" (making horrible mistake - "this" instead of "these", by the way). So yes, with Axx Axx Axxxx Ax I would open 1D. I regard 1NT as strongly anti-positional, not only because of the club holding. Situation would change with (3-2)-5-3, now I wouldn't have any sensible rebid after 1M (my doubleton) response. [Ciborozzo] Then somebody else suggested opening 1D and reversing 2H and says "WTP". Doctor, please! [Bystryheim] I wouldn't bid 2H but I don't regard it as crazy. Only risky, because after 2S one would have to guess whether to pass or make a GF. Misstating the number of hearts isn't important because we can always correct them to spades. [Ciborozzo] How about playing bridge for a change? This a perfectly normal, strong NT hand so it should be bid as such (thus 1D - 1S - 1NT playing weak NT). Anything else is nuts. [Bystryheim] Wouldn't it be a bit brassy for such a wabbit as me to quarrel with Grande Conrado? Who cares, I will. If it is just a perfectly normal 1NT, what would you say about xx KJx AQJxx KJx or similar hands? Now try to fit partner's 5-7 HCP with spades to both of the hands, actual and from my example, and see what is the difference between optimal contracts. 1NT rebid will be often passed even with 5 spades, there is no possibility to make a transfer like after 1NT opening. Of course one may play 2C as operational, then 1NT looks better. [Ciborozzo] An anti-positional club holding is only a very small distortion. Still this hand is _a lot_ closer to the ideal hand for a strong NT (with the major suits 8's or without) than to 4S-5D or to 3=4=5=1 you good people are planning to show. [Bystryheim] I strongly disagree. "Empty" Aces are much better suitable for the suit contract. They are only suitable for the "quick" NT, cashing a long suit and those Aces. Otherwise you play NT from the wrong hand and lack the tricks gained by ruffing clubs. Give partner normal KJxx xxx xx Kxxx and I prefer to play 3S (very probable +140) than 1NT (+90 or +120 dependent on catching the spade Queen). [Ciborozzo] "Partner, I must make some inventive bid on every board or die". [Bystryheim] I don't abuse such inventive bids. But I hate to bid NT with a hand bad to play NT from my side. If I have any sensible option (here we may disagree what is sensible) I choose it. Regards Bystry From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jan 4 14:37:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:37:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] dWS reinvented In-Reply-To: <495FBD0F.6030703@nhcc.net> References: <495FBD0F.6030703@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <4960BB9D.2030005@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > [An old thread. I was traveling in September and am still not caught > up, but I'm confident no one wrote anything like my answer.] > > From: "Stefanie Rohan" > Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 02:42:03 +0100 >> When you know that the opponents are having a cock-up, or that they are in >> unfamiliar territory, it is unethical to ask them for an explanation with >> the purpose of creating UI for their side. > > Which law or regulation says that? > None. If Stephanie believes it is unethical to ask such a question (and I agree with her - it's not "proper" in my opinion) then how does she propose to deal with the unethical player who does ask such a question, and how does she propose to deal with the perfectly ethical player who unwittingly asks a question with the same consequence. Far better is it to allow a player to answer the question, but in such a way that partner does not receive UI. > Contrariwise, why isn't failing to ask such a question, if you think it > will put the opponents into a restrictive UI situation, dumping? > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 5 02:49:43 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 12:49:43 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: Hermione, speaking to Ron and Harry: "I hope you're pleased with yourselves. We could have been all killed -- or worse, expelled." Tony Musgrove: 2H, wtp John (MadDog) Probst: This is a bizarre choice; you're committing to 2N on a combined 22 count and still haven't limited your hand Personally I'd bid 2N; yes it could be a 22 count; but I'm limited now. Tony Musgrove: I have played with this guy before. He is going to bid 3NT with the missing diamond honours and KQ of clubs. His spade bid was a psyche (or Richard has lost the plot). Richard Hills: No, this time I was trying another trick question; I was seeking an answer as to whether the actual Appeals Committee consisted of players too expert to be peers of South. That is, were the Appeals Committee so revolted by the Walrus under-rebid of a 15-16 hcp 1NT (when holding four aces, undervalued in the Milton Work count) that they deemed any sensible person would raise a 2S signoff to 3S? Maciej Bystry: Complete lack of table presence guys. You should bid 1NT, wait for partner's hesitant 2S, raise it to 3S and reach 4S this way. Thanks to that you will make the opponents aggrieved, give some work to the bored TD and AC, some entertainment for the Casebook readers and cause heated discussion on the BLML (at least once, this time things look much calmer). Richard Hills: At the time I argued that if a player hugely downgrades the South hand to a mere 1NT rebid (instead of Probst's obvious 2NT limit bid promising 17-18 hcp), then that player would slightly downgrade the South hand by passing North's signoff --- unless North suggested maximum values by hesitating, and (surprise, surprise) North did have maximum values. Konrad Ciborowski: How about playing bridge for a change? This a perfectly normal, strong NT hand so it should be bid as such (thus 1D - 1S - 1NT playing weak NT). Anything else is nuts. Richard Hills: Rather than arguing that Konrad is nuts, I suggest that he misread the problem. North-South apparently used old-fashioned Acol methods, with no checkback after a 1NT rebid. Hence their rebids with perfectly normal, strong NT hands are 1NT (lower range) or 2NT (upper range). The good news is that, if this case repeats in EBU-land, the outcome would be different. The old EBU rule was that after UI demonstrably suggested bidding on after a drop-dead signoff, the raise had to be merely "evident" or "a 70% choice". The new EBU rule is: EBU Law and Ethics Committee, 11th November 2008 Advice to Appeal Committee Chairman (and Tournament Directors) on the impact of the new laws regarding logical alternatives. November 2008 Is an action a logical alternative (an LA)? When deciding whether an action constitutes an LA under the 2007 Laws, the TD should consider two things. 1. He should decide whether a significant proportion of the player's peers [playing the same system] would consider the action. What is a significant proportion? The laws don't specify %. While it is best if a TD gets a feeling for the term "significant proportion" he will not go far wrong if he assumes it means a minimum of 20% of players. If a significant proportion would not consider the action chosen then it does not constitute an LA. 2. If a significant proportion would then the TD should next consider whether some of them would actually choose it. It is best not to consider specific figures. If even a small number would choose it then that is enough. As to methodology, asking players for opinions is helpful, without telling them the problem. For example, if this is a hesitation case, ask them as a bidding problem without mentioning the hesitation. The TD should ask them what they would call after the given sequence, telling them the methods employed. If their answer is not the action under consideration then a further question should be asked, namely what alternatives they considered. This poll should give the TD a fair idea of whether an action is an LA. What should an appeal committee do if the ruling is appealed? * They should look at Law 16B. 1B in that section defines an LA. * They may ask the TD for details of any poll he took. * They could consider their own poll but time and practicality usually rules this out. * They should be aware that the old, so called, 30% or 70% rules are not the ones in force now. * They should be aware that this is a judgment area and might like to ascertain the experience of the players * In practice under the 2007 laws a disputed action is less likely to be allowed than previously. 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 Mon Jan 5 05:48:14 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:48:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl><87A276B4E94C4F7EAFAE5F9E5487EDD1@JOHN> <001801c96e2c$0167b540$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <5A8A99130F0641559083586B5E855C84@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Custom adapts itself to expediency." > (Tacitus) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 4:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? > > > (Maciej) > So what should take precedence, denying all the gain to the Declarer > side by applying L23 and adjusting the score for both sides, or > allowing his side to keep some part of the gain in order to punish the > defenders for their careless mistake? >> > (John) > I'm always against this form of split score. in cheating cases. If I > know you're going to rule this way the Probst cheat gains, knowing > that his opponents will get a less good score than they would have > done had I not cheated. "One off, both ways, you cheating bastards" > is the only possible result. John >>> > +=+ I doubt, John, that you can justify this as complying with > the standards of Law 12B1. Further, in my opinion the defender's > error is related to the infraction and therefore denied application > of Law 12C1(b). Yeah, I can live with the subsequent part of it, but not the consequent bit. I'm not planning on rocking the boat, but I dislike allowing the probst cheat to prosper. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Jan 5 05:52:14 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:52:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> <431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1> Message-ID: <5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Konrad Ciborowski" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:47 AM Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [Richard] > > None vulnerable > > You, South, hold: > > AT8 > A84 > A9763 > A5 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1D > Pass 1S Pass ? > > Seriously, I hate such hands. Playing strong 1NT I would open it, but only > because of T8 in spades (and 8 in hearts). So holding A10x Axx Axxxx Ax you open 1D playing strong NT? Matkoboskoczestochosko... BIIIIIIIG bridge... Then somebody else suggested opening 1D and reversing 2H and says "WTP". Doctor, please! How about playing bridge for a change? This a perfectly normal, strong NT hand so it should be bid as such (thus 1D - 1S - 1NT playing weak NT). Anything else is nuts. Agreed but we don't rebid1NT with a strong NT we rebid it with 15-16 in Acol. John From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Jan 5 06:15:32 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:15:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN> References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP> <200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au> <200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> <001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> <431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1> <5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN> Message-ID: <200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 03:52 PM 5/01/2009, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:09 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Bystry" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:47 AM >Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > [Richard] > > > > None vulnerable > > > > You, South, hold: > > > > AT8 > > A84 > > A9763 > > A5 > > > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > > Pass Pass 1D > > Pass 1S Pass ? > > > > > Seriously, I hate such hands. Playing strong 1NT I would open it, but only > > because of T8 in spades (and 8 in hearts). > >So holding A10x Axx Axxxx Ax you open 1D playing strong NT? >Matkoboskoczestochosko... > >BIIIIIIIG bridge... > >Then somebody else suggested opening 1D and reversing 2H and >says "WTP". Doctor, please! > >How about playing bridge for a change? >This a perfectly normal, strong NT hand so it should be >bid as such (thus 1D - 1S - 1NT playing weak NT). >Anything else is nuts. > >Agreed but we don't rebid1NT with a strong NT we rebid it with 15-16 in >Acol. John > Exactly so. Apparently after my 2H, partner is going to bid 2S (exposing his lack of psych), so I bid 3S. He is going to play the hand, and he is a better player. WTP Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 5 07:07:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:07:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c96cf1$17dc4700$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Revd Robert Easton, Fat, Bald and Worthless, page 24: "The bonny Earl's death has given rise to a new word in the English language. It originated in a mishearing of a line from the ballad 'Geordie', which records his murder: Ye Hielands and ye Lowlands O, whaur hae ye been? They hae slain the Earl o' Moray And laid him on the green. In an article for Harper's Magazine in 1954 the American writer Sylvia Wright admitted that she had misheard the last line as 'And Lady Mondegreen' and had gone on to tell friends that she thought it unfair that James's innocent wife had also been killed, And thus the term 'mondegreen', referring to a misheard song lyric, was born." Maciej Bystry: [snip] >But the problems are present and I'll try to enlist them: > >- most bridge events are played in the form of pairs tournaments, Richard Hills: Serious bridge events are played in the form of imps tournaments. One could argue that matchpoint pairs is not bridge (at the very least bidding systems designed to do well at matchpoint pairs are sub-optimal for imps). Maciej Bystry: >the round duration is limited and so the time for the pre-play >disclosure is limited. It is absolutely impossible to ask about all >the agreements which may later appear relevant. Richard Hills: For the frivolous bridge of a pairs tournament at one's local bridge club, pre-play disclosure is unnecessary, since one has played against the same faces many times before. At last month's Annual General Meeting of the South Canberra Bridge Club one member moved that System Cards should be compulsory. I successfully moved an amendment that System Cards should only be compulsory for the solitary pair which plays unusual methods (that is, Ali-Hills). Since my partnership had presented two comprehensive System Cards at the table since the last millennium anyway, the status quo ante remained. :-) Maciej Bystry: >It would be much more time-consuming than simple question during >the auction anyway. Richard Hills: For the frivolous bridge of a pairs tournament at one's local bridge club, a simple question during the auction is often very counter- productive. Stefanie Rohan, September 2008: >>>When you know that the opponents are having a cock-up, or that >>>they are in unfamiliar territory, it is unethical to ask them for >>>an explanation with the purpose of creating UI for their side. Steve Willner, January 2009: >>Which law or regulation says that? >> >>Contrariwise, why isn't failing to ask such a question, if you >>think it will put the opponents into a restrictive UI situation, >>dumping? Richard Hills: Without the question the opponents may have a giant misunderstanding, giving you a top. After the question one or both of the opponents may well infract Law 75A for a more normal result. Steve Willner's ivory tower theoretical argument is that a question cements the likely top. I vote for Nigel Guthrie's practical idea that what is now Law 75A has not been 100% effectively enforced in the past, so it is simpler to ask zero questions (and, if the RA permits, switch off all alerts). Maciej Bystry: >- regulations regarding the disclosure are stated at a whim of RAs. >I agree that such things like system and alert regulations, SC >formats and language and some other should be their domain. But >there should be at least a minimal part of the "system" which *the >laws* explicitly force to be pre-disclosed. Richard Hills: Because Helge Vinje was a Norwegian, in Norway a minimal part of the system which must be pre-disclosed is whether or not Vinje Signals are in use. Ergo, Vinje Signals must be mentioned in the 2017 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. :-) Every textbook in the world agrees that an opening bid of 5H or 5S will promise 11 playing tricks missing the ace or king of trumps. Ergo, the universal 5H and 5S opening bids must also be mentioned in the 2017 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. :-) Maciej Bystry: >Otherwise we may have a quagmire for the players in different NBOs. >In Poland there is *no* obligation to have any SC and *no* obligation >to pre-alert anything. Richard Hills: By the Polish RA having such laissez-faire disclosure rules, it may encourage international Polish players to get into sloppy habits. For example, the (in)famous semi-final at the 1994 Albuquerque Rosenblum Cup, when a world-class Polish pair were careless with their advance submission of system notes, so lost 30-odd imps in adjusted scores, and were also prohibited from playing in the final quarter. Maciej Bystry: >Our only sure source of information is L20F1. If that was left to the >RAs whim too, we could find ourselves in a situation in which no (sic) >disclosure could be obtained unless the opponents appeared to be >magnanimous. Now I know that the WBF may have deep in the *** what is >happening to Polish players. I will hear "you can change your bridge >authorities" (yeah, sure), [snip] Richard Hills: Have you tried? Edgar Kaplan discovered that the 1963 Lawbook was deeply inadequate. He piloted a useful idea that Law 16 should be decriminalised in New York in the 1960s. Then he successfully campaigned for a spot on the ACBL Board of Directors, which gave him a stepping-stone to the ACBL Laws Commission and consequently the WBF Laws Committee. Finally, Edgar helped draft the almost adequate 1975 Lawbook. In my case I have tried (and been trying?) over the years. I have spent some time as a panellist on Appeals Casebooks, created two unofficial Appeals Casebooks of my own, and successfully suggested* that a subtle ambiguity should be removed from Law 11. 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 * To be more precise, "successfully remembered"; the ambiguity was first noticed by David Stevenson many years ago (the update to Law 77 to formally include a score for a passed-in deal was also originally a Stevensonian idea). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Jan 5 07:36:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:36:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000f01c96cb1$5126d380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, chapter 14: "Spew?" said Harry, picking up a badge and looking at it. "What's this about?" "Not spew," said Hermione impatiently, "It's S-P-E-W. Stands for the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare." Dumbledore Endicott: >+=+ (Quibble - Grattan ) > I am inclined to think that Richard has not fully >expressed the 2007 position in his remarks. Richard Hills: Yes, my meretricious argument for N/S +430 and E/W Ave- fails when one examines the second sentence of the Definition of Adjusted Score: "It is either 'artificial' or 'assigned'." Which means that an Adjusted Score cannot be _both_ artificial and assigned. Dumbledore Endicott: > If the position were in truth such as Marvin alleges, >the Director would not seem to have fulfilled all the >objectives of score adjustment as now laid down in Law 12B1. > ~ G ~ +=+ Law 12B1, first sentence: "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." Richard Hills: In the circumstances described by Marv, one side kept its table score but the other side was given redress. This meant that the Director had resolved Law 85 disputed facts by ruling that an infraction had occurred (from the non-offending side's point of view), and also that an infraction had not occurred (from the putative offending side's point of view). A similar leap in logic was perpetrated by a New Zealand AC some years ago; I will rummage through my files to see if I can find the Kiwi appeal; if so, I will post it tomorrow. 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 Jan 5 10:49:50 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:49:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001701c96f1a$f40d1260$15844c59@chello.pl> > Maciej Bystry: > > [snip] > > >But the problems are present and I'll try to enlist them: > > > >- most bridge events are played in the form of pairs tournaments, > > Richard Hills: > > Serious bridge events are played in the form of imps tournaments. I'm afraid that to make your statement correct one should add "some" in front of it, unless you were expressing only your preferences. > One could argue that matchpoint pairs is not bridge (at the very > least bidding systems designed to do well at matchpoint pairs are > sub-optimal for imps). One could argue exactly opposite giving the same reason as you. > Maciej Bystry: > > >the round duration is limited and so the time for the pre-play > >disclosure is limited. It is absolutely impossible to ask about all > >the agreements which may later appear relevant. > > Richard Hills: > > For the frivolous bridge of a pairs tournament at one's local bridge > club, pre-play disclosure is unnecessary, since one has played > against the same faces many times before. Were you to read carefully my contributions you would know that in Poland nearly all bridge is played in the form of matchpoints. National tournaments have relatively high level and high prices, and I was talking mainly about them, not about the play at the local tournaments (for which I don't care, they are mostly a place to have some fun). > Maciej Bystry: > > >It would be much more time-consuming than simple question during > >the auction anyway. > > Richard Hills: > > For the frivolous bridge of a pairs tournament at one's local bridge > club, a simple question during the auction is often very counter- > productive. One thing is hard to understand for me. You are deprecating bridge in other countries without any reason to do so. I didn't notice that Australian players dominate on the winning lists of major world tournaments. But no doubt you will correct me and I will bow to your superior opinions. Till then is it possible to avoid chauvinism? > Richard Hills: > > Steve Willner's ivory tower theoretical argument is that a question > cements the likely top. I vote for Nigel Guthrie's practical idea > that what is now Law 75A has not been 100% effectively enforced in > the past, so it is simpler to ask zero questions (and, if the RA > permits, switch off all alerts). I find it completely impractical and on balance unprofitable to ask the questions in order to catch the opponents' mixups. If somebody wants to do it, his choice. I'll bet he would get tired after some rounds and played worse bridge thereafter. No real need to intervene, maybe only PP for harassment if the opponents feel that overquestioning was unpleasant. > Maciej Bystry: > > >- regulations regarding the disclosure are stated at a whim of RAs. > >I agree that such things like system and alert regulations, SC > >formats and language and some other should be their domain. But > >there should be at least a minimal part of the "system" which *the > >laws* explicitly force to be pre-disclosed. > > Richard Hills: > > Because Helge Vinje was a Norwegian, in Norway a minimal part of the > system which must be pre-disclosed is whether or not Vinje Signals > are in use. Ergo, Vinje Signals must be mentioned in the 2017 > edition of The Fabulous Law Book. :-) > > Every textbook in the world agrees that an opening bid of 5H or 5S > will promise 11 playing tricks missing the ace or king of trumps. > Ergo, the universal 5H and 5S opening bids must also be mentioned in > the 2017 edition of The Fabulous Law Book. :-) Reductio ad absurdum. Really blatant. You perfectly know that I was writing about categories (like e.g. opening bids, relay sequences), not particular conventions. > Maciej Bystry: > > >Otherwise we may have a quagmire for the players in different NBOs. > >In Poland there is *no* obligation to have any SC and *no* obligation > >to pre-alert anything. > > Richard Hills: > > By the Polish RA having such laissez-faire disclosure rules, it may > encourage international Polish players to get into sloppy habits. For > example, the (in)famous semi-final at the 1994 Albuquerque Rosenblum > Cup, when a world-class Polish pair were careless with their advance > submission of system notes, so lost 30-odd imps in adjusted scores, and > were also prohibited from playing in the final quarter. I don't know whether our disclosure rules encourage such behavior or not. Most people do not have SCs because they are lenient, not because they want to hide something, and they still answer any questions appropriately. There is no massive problem in Poland with disclosure, systems are quite uniform and players sensible, not litigious. Nevertheless there are cases in which innocent players are harmed. I refrained myself from asking some questions because of UI implications, sometimes partner (or I) was restricted. And I don't see any reason to have *any* such troubles, just because lawmakers did a bad job. > Maciej Bystry: > > >Our only sure source of information is L20F1. If that was left to the > >RAs whim too, we could find ourselves in a situation in which no (sic) > >disclosure could be obtained unless the opponents appeared to be > >magnanimous. Now I know that the WBF may have deep in the *** what is > >happening to Polish players. I will hear "you can change your bridge > >authorities" (yeah, sure), > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Have you tried? > > Edgar Kaplan discovered that the 1963 Lawbook was deeply inadequate. > He piloted a useful idea that Law 16 should be decriminalised in New > York in the 1960s. Then he successfully campaigned for a spot on the > ACBL Board of Directors, which gave him a stepping-stone to the ACBL > Laws Commission and consequently the WBF Laws Committee. Finally, > Edgar helped draft the almost adequate 1975 Lawbook. > > In my case I have tried (and been trying?) over the years. I have spent > some time as a panellist on Appeals Casebooks, created two unofficial > Appeals Casebooks of my own, and successfully suggested* that a subtle > ambiguity should be removed from Law 11. > > What's the problem? The problem is that not everybody is Edgar Kaplan and not everybody is Richard Hills. Every man has his own balance of priorities. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Jan 5 16:36:55 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:36:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing Message-ID: <003d01c96f4b$708d2b60$15844c59@chello.pl> [David Burn, Feb 2003] (Herman) This is getting very close to "if it comes from Herman, it must be wrong". (David) Tricky one, this. If I agree with it, I will be accused of victimising Herman. If I don't agree with it, I will be asserting that Herman is once again wrong. [/David] Sorry, I found it so funny I couldn't resist. I only hope that in the future my idiosyncratic ideas will make me an object of such jokes too, I really love it :-) Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 5 21:24:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:24:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] A thousand points of light [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Rubber bridge Dlr: North Vul: Both You, South, hold: J T764 T82 AQJ32 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1NT(1) 2S ? In your methods: (a) Double is not negative (b) 3C is not forcing What is your only logical alternative? Why is it your only logical alternative? 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 Jan 5 22:12:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 08:12:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Muldoon, New Zealand Prime Minister 1975-1984: "When New Zealanders emigrate to Australia, it raises the average IQ of both countries." New Zealand Women's International Selection Trials 2002, Cross-imped Butler Board 15: K3 N/S J987 South 8654 QT6 QJT854 A9762 AKQ3 642 T9 A3 J 873 --- T5 KQJ72 AK9542 West North East South --- --- --- 1D(1) 1S X 4S 5C Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass 5S Pass Pass X Pass Pass Pass (1) Could contain longer Clubs (2) Agreed break in tempo. N/S -650. May 2002 report in the Bridge Director's Bulletin -> Arie Geursen, Chief Director of New Zealand: The Director reasoned that this was a "no brainer". West could not bid 5S over 5C and therefore Pass or Double were surely logical alternatives to 5S after the break in tempo from partner (Law 16A2). The score was adjusted to 5D minus one, as per Law 12C2. Interestingly, this appeal tied the Committee in knots. There were five on the committee and as many honestly held points of view. The first was adamant the Director's reasons were sound and the score should stand. The second felt Pass or Double were not logical alternatives because 75% of the field would always bid 5S in that auction. The third argued that it was the correction to 5D by North that had provided West with sufficient authorized information to suggest it was now right to bid 5S rather than one round earlier over the original 5C. The fourth reasoned that the hesitation from East did not demonstrably suggest 5S over Pass or Double (in fact it could equally well have been very wrong to bid). The last one thought there were merits in all the arguments and held out for a split score! Even the advice from the CTD that this was a straightforward case of making a judgment call as to whether or not approximately 75% the field would bid 5? without the break in tempo did not help. If it was, E/W get their score back, if not the Directors ruling should stay. The committee could not come to a consensus on any avenue they went down. After a very long debate and after everyone else had gone home, they emerged with a 3-2 decision that the board should be scored twice. Once with the Director's adjustment and the once with the table result before taking the average of the two! These sort of deadlocks are not uncommon and maybe there is a lot to be said for the suggestion that Committees should comprise only four members and unless there is a clear majority, the Director's ruling should stand. Did this decision reflect the intention of Law 12C3? Several of the committee are subscribers and welcome some feed back from the readers. When the players arrived in the morning they thought the Directors had blown a fuse as everyone.s score changed by half a wheelbarrow load of imps and the love affair with Butler Trials using cross-imped scoring was fading rapidly! Laurie Kelso, Editorial Comment: Since Arie has invited feedback on case two, I am willing to step out on a limb and say that I have doubts about the committee's approach. Appeals Committees are basically bound by the same laws and principles as a director. The director when asked for a ruling has to give one. Here the committee seems to have tried to avoid that by making two diametrically opposed decisions and averaging the IMP turnover. I don't see this as a valid application of Law 12C3. Before anyone can consider using this Law, an initial decision has to be made about whether there has been an infraction of Law 16A. It was upon this issue that the committee seems to have had trouble reaching a consensus. Most committees arrive at a decision without having to resort to a majority vote. Here however a vote appears to have been necessary. This is the reason why committees usually comprise an odd number of members. This committee just needed to ask themselves the standard (Law 16) questions and if necessary vote upon each. They are: 1. Was unauthorised information available to West? 2. Did this information demonstrably suggest to West the (5S) action chosen? 3. Were there other logical alternative actions (i.e. other than 5S) available to West? 4. Were N/S damaged by the chosen action (5S)? The answers to (1) and (4) would probably have been "Yes", however from the description of the various points of view expressed by some committee members, I won't predict how the majority might have voted on points (2) and (3). An answer of "No" to any one of the above would have led to a decision of "no adjustment". Either the 5S bid was legal or it wasn't, neither the director nor the committee can have it both ways. Law 12C3 usually only kicks in when there are a number of possible outcomes, after disallowing those actions which are illegal. Here the only remaining option is 5D minus one (assuming 5Sx is disallowed). 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 Mon Jan 5 23:07:07 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:07:07 -0600 Subject: [blml] A thousand points of light [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0901051407l119c6705v31c5537c9611d9af@mail.gmail.com> Care to give a NT range? From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jan 5 23:20:08 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:20:08 +1300 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560901051420x1e6b1a93g7b7d7742b030a924@mail.gmail.com> 2009/1/6 : > Robert Muldoon, New Zealand Prime Minister 1975-1984: > > "When New Zealanders emigrate to Australia, it raises > the average IQ of both countries." > > New Zealand Women's International Selection Trials > 2002, Cross-imped Butler > > Board 15: K3 > N/S J987 > South 8654 > QT6 > QJT854 A9762 > AKQ3 642 > T9 A3 > J 873 > --- > T5 > KQJ72 > AK9542 > > West North East South > --- --- --- 1D(1) > 1S X 4S 5C > Pass 5D Pass(2) Pass > 5S Pass Pass X > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Could contain longer Clubs > (2) Agreed break in tempo. > > N/S -650. > > May 2002 report in the Bridge Director's Bulletin -> > > Arie Geursen, Chief Director of New Zealand: > > The Director reasoned that this was a "no brainer". > West could not bid 5S over 5C and therefore Pass or > Double were surely logical alternatives to 5S after the > break in tempo from partner (Law 16A2). The score was > adjusted to 5D minus one, as per Law 12C2. > > Interestingly, this appeal tied the Committee in knots. > > There were five on the committee and as many > honestly held points of view. The first was adamant > the Director's reasons were sound and the score > should stand. The second felt Pass or Double were > not logical alternatives because 75% of the field > would always bid 5S in that auction. The third > argued that it was the correction to 5D by North that > had provided West with sufficient authorized > information to suggest it was now right to bid 5S > rather than one round earlier over the original 5C. > The fourth reasoned that the hesitation from East did > not demonstrably suggest 5S over Pass or Double > (in fact it could equally well have been very wrong > to bid). The last one thought there were merits in all > the arguments and held out for a split score! > > Even the advice from the CTD that this was a > straightforward case of making a judgment call as to > whether or not approximately 75% the field would > bid 5? without the break in tempo did not help. If it > was, E/W get their score back, if not the Directors > ruling should stay. The committee could not come > to a consensus on any avenue they went down. After > a very long debate and after everyone else had gone > home, they emerged with a 3-2 decision that the board > should be scored twice. Once with the Director's > adjustment and the once with the table result before > taking the average of the two! These sort of > deadlocks are not uncommon and maybe there is a > lot to be said for the suggestion that Committees > should comprise only four members and unless there > is a clear majority, the Director's ruling should stand. > > Did this decision reflect the intention of Law 12C3? > Several of the committee are subscribers and > welcome some feed back from the readers. > > When the players arrived in the morning they thought > the Directors had blown a fuse as everyone.s score > changed by half a wheelbarrow load of imps and the > love affair with Butler Trials using cross-imped > scoring was fading rapidly! > > Laurie Kelso, Editorial Comment: > > Since Arie has invited feedback on case two, I am > willing to step out on a limb and say that I have doubts > about the committee's approach. Appeals Committees are > basically bound by the same laws and principles as a > director. The director when asked for a ruling has to > give one. Here the committee seems to have tried to > avoid that by making two diametrically opposed decisions > and averaging the IMP turnover. > > I don't see this as a valid application of Law 12C3. > Before anyone can consider using this Law, an initial > decision has to be made about whether there has been > an infraction of Law 16A. It was upon this issue > that the committee seems to have had trouble > reaching a consensus. > > Most committees arrive at a decision without having > to resort to a majority vote. Here however a vote > appears to have been necessary. This is the reason > why committees usually comprise an odd number of > members. This committee just needed to ask > themselves the standard (Law 16) questions and if > necessary vote upon each. > > They are: > 1. Was unauthorised information available to > West? > 2. Did this information demonstrably suggest to > West the (5S) action chosen? > 3. Were there other logical alternative actions (i.e. > other than 5S) available to West? > 4. Were N/S damaged by the chosen action (5S)? > > The answers to (1) and (4) would probably have been > "Yes", however from the description of the various > points of view expressed by some committee > members, I won't predict how the majority might > have voted on points (2) and (3). An answer of "No" > to any one of the above would have led to a decision > of "no adjustment". > > Either the 5S bid was legal or it wasn't, neither the > director nor the committee can have it both ways. > Law 12C3 usually only kicks in when there are a > number of possible outcomes, after disallowing those > actions which are illegal. Here the only remaining > option is 5D minus one (assuming 5Sx is disallowed). > > 1. I assume screens were in use (but maybe not). If so we need to first establish that the tempo variation transmitted through the screen. 2. It is far from clear to me that a break in tempo demonstrably suggests bidding on. If partner was intending to double west has an AK of her own. When I look at East's balanced 8 count it seems incredibly unlikely that she was in fact thinking of bidding on and much more likely that in fact she was thinking of double. While I don't suggest directly taking the actual hand into consideration it certainly casts considerable doubt on whether a slow pass in this situation suggests 5S over Pass or Double. 3. West's action on the previous round is largely irrelevant as at that point she did not have the information that partner could not double 5minor. South clearly has a big two-suiter and West has no defense and now knows (or perhaps not based on the hesitation) that East could not double. Bidding 5S now is much more reasonable that on the previous round in front of partner. I am in fact inclined to believe that doubling or even passing is suggested over bidding by partner's slow Pass. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 00:02:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:02:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560901051420x1e6b1a93g7b7d7742b030a924@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Wayne Burrows makes many high IQ and also sensible suggestions as to how the NZ Appeals Committee should have approached the actual case. Of course, matters of judgement are not matters of Law. But Wayne did raise one point which I think is a matter of Law. "When I look at East's balanced 8 count it seems incredibly unlikely that she was in fact thinking of bidding on and much more likely that in fact she was thinking of double." In my opinion, East's actual reason for her actual hesitation is actually irrelevant to Law 16. It is what is "demonstrably suggested" to _West_ which is relevant. Ergo, if in this sort of slooow auction East slooowly contemplates a double (and then passes) 10% of the time, and if East slooowly contemplates 5S (and then passes) 90% of the time, then it is 5S which is demonstrably suggested to West even though the actual East hand belongs to the 10% minority. 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 Jan 6 00:42:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:42:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] A thousand points of light [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jerry Fusselman: >Care to give a NT range? Yes, Jerry has quickly spotted the point (or thousand points) to this problem. Rubber bridge Dlr: North Vul: Both You, South, hold: J T764 T82 AQJ32 The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Robert John David Sheehan Perris Burn --- 1NT(1) 2S ? (1) In theory 15-17 hcp, but North is a lunatic overbidder. In your methods: (a) Double is not negative (b) 3C is not forcing What is your only logical alternative? Pass. Why is it your only logical alternative? With a lunatic overbidder opposite, anything else could well damage your wallet. Under Duplicate Laws 16A1(d) and 40B2(a) it is legal and ethical to apply pre-existing knowledge of partner's (lack of) style and (mis)judgement; presumably this is legal and ethical in rubber bridge also. The complete deal -> K8 KQJ5 J2 KT976 T75 AQ96432 9832 A AKQ74 963 8 54 J T764 T82 AQJ32 The auction continued: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Robert John David Sheehan Perris Burn --- 1NT 2S 3C 4S 4NT Pass Pass Pass After East elected to lead a diamond, the defence cashed the first 13 tricks for a penalty of 1000 the hard way. North vainly argued that best defence against 5Cx is the bigger penalty of 1100, but North's three opponents were laughing too hard to listen. (Deal first reported by Zia Mahmood in The Guardian) 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 Tue Jan 6 00:45:37 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:45:37 +1300 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <2a1c3a560901051420x1e6b1a93g7b7d7742b030a924@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560901051545h20624267g6bf81e9e05bd72d7@mail.gmail.com> 2009/1/6 : > Wayne Burrows makes many high IQ and also sensible suggestions > as to how the NZ Appeals Committee should have approached the > actual case. Of course, matters of judgement are not matters > of Law. But Wayne did raise one point which I think is a > matter of Law. > > "When I look at East's balanced 8 count it seems incredibly > unlikely that she was in fact thinking of bidding on and much > more likely that in fact she was thinking of double." > > In my opinion, East's actual reason for her actual hesitation > is actually irrelevant to Law 16. It is what is "demonstrably > suggested" to _West_ which is relevant. > > Ergo, if in this sort of slooow auction East slooowly > contemplates a double (and then passes) 10% of the time, and > if East slooowly contemplates 5S (and then passes) 90% of the > time, then it is 5S which is demonstrably suggested to West > even though the actual East hand belongs to the 10% minority. > As not a fan of balanced of probabilities type arguments I don't fully support this view. Maybe if it is a 90/10 split you can argue that "demonstrably" is satisfied when it gets nearer to 50/50 then I think we lose "demonstably". It is problematic where the boundary occurs. However I was just trying to use the actual hand as an example that it is not clear what East was thinking of and therefore not at all clear what was demonstrably suggested. Personally I think many situations are of this nature and perhaps even more so when the play is behind screens. Face to face it is more likely in my opinion that partner can in fact additionally read your non-verbal communication and "knows" what you were demonstrably suggest. On the actual hand in a vacuum (away from any 'table feel') I do not believe that the slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding. In general I often think it is not the one hand before us that proves or disproves the use of UI but how often things go horribly wrong (or maybe just non-optimal). Anyone can argue seemingly convincingly that the UI did not demonstrably suggest the action etc. The clincher though for me is how often in these situations does the presumed offending pair have accidents in similar situations. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Jan 6 01:54:02 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:54:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? In-Reply-To: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net> [Bystry] .......Dummy .......S 102 Def 1............Def 2 S 93 ............Immaterial .......Declarer .......S 87 The lead is in dummy, but the Declarer plays S8 from hand and Def 1 covers with 9. IMO - - The ruling should be the same whether declarer leads from the wrong hand at trick two or trick 12. - LHO condoned the lead, so the score stands. - If the director thinks South may have knowingly led from the wrong hand, he should impose a PP. - If so, the PP should be sufficient to remove any chance of profit by the putative offenders. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Jan 6 02:12:33 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:12:33 +0000 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] Laurie Kelso, Editorial Comment: 1. Was unauthorised information available to West? 2. Did this information demonstrably suggest to West the (5S) action chosen? 3. Were there other logical alternative actions (i.e. other than 5S) available to West? 4. Were N/S damaged by the chosen action (5S)? [Nigel] 1. Probably. 2. Yes. a hesitation suggests a double or bid rather than a pass. 3. Yes. Pass. 4. Yes. 5. If the committee can't achieve consensus, it should uphold the director's ruling. 6. 12C3 fudges should be avaoided wherever possible. Unfortunately, however, the new law-book does not allow the director scope for objectivity, when there is an opportunity for incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Jan 6 02:19:47 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 02:19:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> [Nigel] > IMO - > - If the director thinks South may have knowingly led from the wrong > hand, he should impose a PP. [Bystry] Giving PPs on the basis that the player *may* have cheated is a gross overbid. One thing is L23 which allows to deprive the *potential* cheats of their gains (without directly accusing any player), another one is giving a PP, which will be understood as a formal accusation of cheating, unless of course you are prepared to give PPs for every LOOT (I wouldn't mind, although I don't regard it as sensible). If a TD is really convinced that South knowingly led from the wrong hand, then he should refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee, PP is not enough. Regards Maciej From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Jan 6 02:41:41 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:41:41 +1300 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560901051741v49ab9629i284c973d673a90a1@mail.gmail.com> 2009/1/6 Nigel Guthrie : > [Richard Hills] > Laurie Kelso, Editorial Comment: > 1. Was unauthorised information available to West? > 2. Did this information demonstrably suggest to > West the (5S) action chosen? > 3. Were there other logical alternative actions (i.e. > other than 5S) available to West? > 4. Were N/S damaged by the chosen action (5S)? > > [Nigel] > 1. Probably. > 2. Yes. a hesitation suggests a double or bid rather than a pass. I disagree a hesitation based on thinking of doubling would suggest pass over 5S where you might be trading a plus for a minus. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 02:42:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 12:42:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c96f1a$f40d1260$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Mark Twain (1835-1910): "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." Maciej Bystry: >I didn't notice that Australian players dominate on the winning >lists of major world tournaments. But no doubt you will correct >me and I will bow to your superior opinions. Richard Hills: Yes, until recently Australian players dominated on the winning lists of major world cricket tournaments. :-) Maciej Bystry: >Till then is it possible to avoid chauvinism? Richard Hills: Chauvinism is inescapable. Now it is the turn of South Africans and Indians to chauvinistically boast about the prowess of their national cricket teams. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Jan 6 02:54:16 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:54:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? In-Reply-To: <001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net> <001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net> [Bystry] Giving PPs on the basis that the player *may* have cheated is a gross overbid. One thing is L23 which allows to deprive the *potential* cheats of their gains (without directly accusing any player), another one is giving a PP, which will be understood as a formal accusation of cheating, unless of course you are prepared to give PPs for every LOOT (I wouldn't mind, although I don't regard it as sensible). If a TD is really convinced that South knowingly led from the wrong hand, then he should refer the case to the Disciplinary Committee, PP is not enough. [Nigel] I don't agree that a PP should be a "formal accusation of cheating". Suppose that the director feels that in a significant proportion of identical occurrences involving the player's peers, declarer's action would be deliberate. But he isn't sure in this particular case. Is a PP then appropriate? From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Jan 6 03:28:12 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:28:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2a1c3a560901051420x1e6b1a93g7b7d7742b030a924@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560901051545h20624267g6bf81e9e05bd72d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002701c96fa6$6c1c0640$15844c59@chello.pl> > As not a fan of balanced of probabilities type arguments I don't fully > support this view. Maybe if it is a 90/10 split you can argue that > "demonstrably" is satisfied when it gets nearer to 50/50 then I think > we lose "demonstably". It is problematic where the boundary occurs. It is, but it can't be 100% unless you want to adjust in no cases. There is always a possibility that partner was daydreaming or considering making some crazy bid or thinking about the nuances of the auction. Bridge is a game of incomplete information and has to be based on probabilistics. Whether in play (knowing that partner has 1-6-4-2 and circa 15 HCP x AKxxxx KQxx Kx is probable, A Jxxxxx Kxxx AK is not) or in the judgment parts of the laws. From the previous bidding, experience, knowledge of your methods and partner's habits you are able to infer a class of hands your CHO may have in every point of the auction. This class can be divided into two subclasses - hands with which the decision would be more or less clear and those which would merit longer consideration. The second subclass is what interests us. If there is any majority of hands with which your partner would think about action(s) which point to one direction, you should avoid making a call which follows this direction. Of course such precise analysis is beyond human ability. Every player makes an estimation, so he may easily be wrong. That's why we have "demonstrably suggested" which excludes close cases in which the player at the table couldn't be able to evaluate whether given action is really suggested. And that's why the best method to determine whether an action is "demonstrably suggested" is polling the player's peers - they get (ideally) the auction, knowledge of methods and partner's style and in relatively short time (simulating "at the table" conditions) they have to decide what the break in tempo suggests to them. Yes, that doesn't solve all the problems. What to do if the poll results are split? Honestly, I don't know what should be the size of the presumed majority which would be enough to decide "demonstrably suggested". Hawks will say "any majority is enough", doves will require near-consensus. I think we have to live with that, I presume that the authorities usually issue some guidelines for their TDs. If not, they should. > On the actual hand in a vacuum (away from any 'table feel') I do not > believe that the slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding. I would double 5D with two Aces (although I may be biased by matchpoint strategy) and considering double was probably the reason for the hesitation, but in my opinion 5S will be more often considered in this position. It depends also on the methods the partnership uses in such situations... > In general I often think it is not the one hand before us that proves > or disproves the use of UI but how often things go horribly wrong (or > maybe just non-optimal). Anyone can argue seemingly convincingly that > the UI did not demonstrably suggest the action etc. The clincher > though for me is how often in these situations does the presumed > offending pair have accidents in similar situations. This approach would be fine, but has two major drawbacks. It would be hard to follow the career of any pair, unless they play regularly in your club and TD(s) note all the doubtful cases (which e.g. in Poland would be practically impossible). What's more, the cases in which UI was used, but the result satisfying for their opponents, wouldn't be known to the TD. Second flaw is worse - even if you manage to catch that pair after long investigation, you won't be able to make a timetrip into the past and redress the damage their opponents earlier suffered. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Jan 6 04:01:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:01:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >5. If the committee can't achieve consensus, it should uphold >the director's ruling. [snip] Law 92A: "...may appeal for a review..." Richard Hills: In my opinion, the word "review" means that the Director's ruling should be the first point of reference for an Appeals Committee, not a last-minute tiebreak for unresolved indecision. So even if an Appeals Committee does reach consensus that they would have ruled in a different way to the Director, they need new evidence to change the original ruling in their "review", not merely an instinctive feeling in their bones. Nigel Guthrie: >...incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo. Hiller B. Zobel (1932- ), retired judge, on the jury system: "Asking the ignorant to use the incomprehensible to decide the unknowable." 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 Jan 6 03:59:52 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:59:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Nigel] > I don't agree that a PP should be a "formal accusation of cheating". > Suppose that the director feels that in a significant proportion of > identical occurrences involving the player's peers, declarer's action > would be deliberate. But he isn't sure in this particular case. Is a PP > then appropriate? [Me] In my opinion definitely not. It is legal, yes, but not appropriate. Ask yourself, would you give him this PP for the mistake done in the other situation, when it appeared beneficial for his opponents? If not, then you shouldn't give it now. Because you would punish him for being a "probable cheat". That would be similar to the situation in which you would be sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment just because the policemen and the judges wouldn't like your face and your habit of taking the night walks. LOOT is LOOT, whether done by a cute young chick or an ugly old savage, whether in the second trick or tenth. If you wish you may give PPs to the experienced players in the serious tournaments and refrain from that in the club games. If you wish you may (should) give them to the repeated offenders (but then not only in the position from the actual case, but in every position). But you certainly shouldn't give it to the player A ("I don't like him, I suspect he is a cheat") and not give it to the player B ("I like him, I'm sure he is pure"). Wasn't it you who ranted for many years about TDs' bias, subjective judgments etc? Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Jan 6 04:23:06 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:23:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tidings of comfort and joy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004301c96fae$17be2620$15844c59@chello.pl> > Richard Hills: > > Yes, until recently Australian players dominated on the winning > lists of major world cricket tournaments. :-) I don't want to offend anyone, but my knowledge about cricket is void and I care for it as much as for Precise Spitting Against the Wind or Breaking In Chacma Baboons. > Richard Hills: > > Chauvinism is inescapable. Now it is the turn of South Africans > and Indians to chauvinistically boast about the prowess of their > national cricket teams. :-) You mean those Indians from the Wild West or those from the Wild East? At least South Africans should be obvious, I remember something said on the TV about Australia beaten by Lesotho. Or was it Suazi? Sue me ;-) Maciej From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 6 04:34:46 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:34:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl><431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1><5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN> <200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <88AF9BBC6A8D4D1B896A7FF8EEACA875@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > At 03:52 PM 5/01/2009, you wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Konrad Ciborowski" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 11:09 AM >>Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Bystry" >>To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2009 10:47 AM >>Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >> > [Richard] >> > >> > None vulnerable >> > >> > You, South, hold: >> > >> > AT8 >> > A84 >> > A9763 >> > A5 >> > >> > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> > Pass Pass 1D >> > Pass 1S Pass ? >> > >> >> > Seriously, I hate such hands. Playing strong 1NT I would open it, but >> > only >> > because of T8 in spades (and 8 in hearts). >> >>So holding A10x Axx Axxxx Ax you open 1D playing strong NT? >>Matkoboskoczestochosko... >> >>BIIIIIIIG bridge... >> >>Then somebody else suggested opening 1D and reversing 2H and >>says "WTP". Doctor, please! >> >>How about playing bridge for a change? >>This a perfectly normal, strong NT hand so it should be >>bid as such (thus 1D - 1S - 1NT playing weak NT). >>Anything else is nuts. >> >>Agreed but we don't rebid1NT with a strong NT we rebid it with 15-16 in >>Acol. John >> > Exactly so. Apparently after my 2H, partner is going to bid > 2S (exposing his lack of psych), so I bid 3S. He is going > to play the hand, and he is a better player. WTP Playing in 4H? Going off in 3N? 2H is GF facing a 5-count - Yowzers. > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 6 04:41:07 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:41:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] A thousand points of light [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <2b1e598b0901051407l119c6705v31c5537c9611d9af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:07 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A thousand points of light [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Care to give a NT range? about 10 1/2-13 usually. John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Tue Jan 6 04:44:34 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:44:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl><4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net> <001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6BD6DBD57E7C4AFB8B75503D909C2967@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bystry" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:19 AM Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? > [Nigel] > >> IMO - >> - If the director thinks South may have knowingly led from the wrong >> hand, he should impose a PP. > > [Bystry] > > Giving PPs on the basis that the player *may* have cheated is a gross > overbid. One thing is L23 which allows to deprive the *potential* cheats > of > their gains (without directly accusing any player), another one is giving > a > PP, which will be understood as a formal accusation of cheating, unless of > course you are prepared to give PPs for every LOOT (I wouldn't mind, > although I don't regard it as sensible). If a TD is really convinced that > South knowingly led from the wrong hand, then he should refer the case to > the Disciplinary Committee, PP is not enough. I agree entirely. john > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 6 08:10:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:10:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl><431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1><5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN><200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au> <88AF9BBC6A8D4D1B896A7FF8EEACA875@JOHN> Message-ID: <001401c96fcd$cfab0400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott>>----- Original Message ----- .................................[snip]................................................... >> Exactly so. Apparently after my 2H, partner is going to bid >> 2S (exposing his lack of psych), so I bid 3S. He is going >> to play the hand, and he is a better player. WTP > > Playing in 4H? Going off in 3N? 2H is GF facing a 5-count - Yowzers. > +=+ "exposing his lack of psych" - on what basis, other than a CPU, can there be any suggestion of a psyche? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Jan 6 14:10:02 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:10:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? In-Reply-To: <003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net> <003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net> [Bystry] LOOT is LOOT, whether done by a cute young chick or an ugly old savage, whether in the second trick or tenth. If you wish you may give PPs to the experienced players in the serious tournaments and refrain from that in the club games. If you wish you may (should) give them to the repeated offenders (but then not only in the position from the actual case, but in every position). But you certainly shouldn't give it to the player A ("I don't like him, I suspect he is a cheat") and not give it to the player B ("I like him, I'm sure he is pure"). Wasn't it you who ranted for many years about TDs' bias, subjective judgements etc? [Nigel] Maciej and I are arguing at cross-purposes. IMO ... 1. I was attempting to interpret the law as it *is* (not as it should be). 2 We aren't talking about LOOTs *in general*. We're discussing a particular case: When declarer's lead from the wrong hand may be a deliberate attempt to gain advantage.. 3. I suggested that we should judge the player's action in relation to the hypothetical identical action by his peers. Short of a confession, I don't understand how the director can be certain. He must settle for a scale of probability. 4. I recognize that subjective judgement is often necessary. Arguably, in this case, it is necessary. In the past (and in the new laws) what I criticise is what I regard as *superfluous* subjectivity, seemingly introduced for the sake of sophistication. Perhaps to make the job of lawmakers and directors more interesting and challenging. But making the law less comprehensible to ordinary players; reducing deterrence, and (because subjective rulings are necessarily inconsistent) sacrificing the appearance of justice. 6. As far as PPs are concerned, the actual result is irrelevant. (Except that there is rarely a director-call if an alleged infraction shows no profit).. 7. In this specific case, if the director suspects declarer may have known what he was doing, he should impose a PP even when the ploy doesn't gain. 8 Unfortunately, most players, like Maciej and John, regard a PP as tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Hence, in practice, PPs are rarely imposed. With the spread of so-called "Equity" laws, PPs become essential to provide redress and deterrence. In this predicament, we must try to change attitudes to PPs.. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 6 15:05:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:05:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net><003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000b01c97007$d5529190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? > 8 Unfortunately, most players, like Maciej and John, regard a PP as > tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Hence, in practice, PPs are > rarely imposed. With the spread of so-called "Equity" laws, PPs become > essential to provide redress and deterrence. In this predicament, we > must try to change attitudes to PPs.. > +=+ We must leave Tournament Directors to decide how to use their Law 90A discretion. However, the laws lend no credence to any suggestion that assessment of a PP is "tantamount to an accusation of cheating". ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 6 16:05:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:05:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <645AC9C0-4B95-4011-8EF0-A4B93A9D8498@starpower.net> On Jan 5, 2009, at 6:02 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Wayne Burrows makes many high IQ and also sensible suggestions > as to how the NZ Appeals Committee should have approached the > actual case. Of course, matters of judgement are not matters > of Law. But Wayne did raise one point which I think is a > matter of Law. > > "When I look at East's balanced 8 count it seems incredibly > unlikely that she was in fact thinking of bidding on and much > more likely that in fact she was thinking of double." > > In my opinion, East's actual reason for her actual hesitation > is actually irrelevant to Law 16. It is what is "demonstrably > suggested" to _West_ which is relevant. > > Ergo, if in this sort of slooow auction East slooowly > contemplates a double (and then passes) 10% of the time, and > if East slooowly contemplates 5S (and then passes) 90% of the > time, then it is 5S which is demonstrably suggested to West > even though the actual East hand belongs to the 10% minority. That sounds fine in theory, but how can we expect a TD/AC to make such a determination when even East himself would have no idea what those relative percentages might be? They would have to: (1) determine the sets of hands on which East would have a close decision between bidding and passing and between bidding and doubling, (2) determine on which of those hands, in each set, this particular East would be likely to hesitate, (3) ascertain the relative frequency of the hands in the remaining sets, and (4) compare that to some objective threshhold value (surely less than 90%, but surely greater than 50.1%) for "not a guess". And they would have to do all this without allowing themselves to be in any way influenced by what East actually held, or by the fact that West's choice of action was necessarily the winning one. And even if they do all that, and decide that East will have been thinking of bidding rather than doubling X% of the time, is it at all reasonable to assume that West can have any awareness of that number? Even in the unlikely event that it might occur to him to think about it (don't all subjective decisions approach 50-50 guesses as the time available in which to make them approaches zero?)? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 6 16:32:09 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:32:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560901051545h20624267g6bf81e9e05bd72d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560901051420x1e6b1a93g7b7d7742b030a924@mail.gmail.com> <2a1c3a560901051545h20624267g6bf81e9e05bd72d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jan 5, 2009, at 6:45 PM, Wayne Burrows wrote: > As not a fan of balanced of probabilities type arguments I don't fully > support this view. Maybe if it is a 90/10 split you can argue that > "demonstrably" is satisfied when it gets nearer to 50/50 then I think > we lose "demonstably". It is problematic where the boundary occurs. > > However I was just trying to use the actual hand as an example that it > is not clear what East was thinking of and therefore not at all clear > what was demonstrably suggested. Personally I think many situations > are of this nature and perhaps even more so when the play is behind > screens. Face to face it is more likely in my opinion that partner > can in fact additionally read your non-verbal communication and > "knows" what you were demonstrably suggest. > > On the actual hand in a vacuum (away from any 'table feel') I do not > believe that the slow pass demonstrably suggests bidding. > > In general I often think it is not the one hand before us that proves > or disproves the use of UI but how often things go horribly wrong (or > maybe just non-optimal). Anyone can argue seemingly convincingly that > the UI did not demonstrably suggest the action etc. The clincher > though for me is how often in these situations does the presumed > offending pair have accidents in similar situations. Sure, but how would you know? Any time the presumed offending pair might have had an accident in a similar situation, it would have been just another routine, unremarked-upon poor result. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Jan 6 16:31:30 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:31:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net><003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001001c97013$d9182ea0$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Nigel] > Maciej and I are arguing at cross-purposes. IMO ... Yes, I have a similar impression too. > 1. I was attempting to interpret the law as it *is* (not as it should be). The law is vague in regard of PPs. The TDs may give them for every breaking of the correct procedure. Their size is undefined. So it is legal for you to give a PP to this player. But there is a difference between "legal" and "appropriate", "fair", "justified". > 2 We aren't talking about LOOTs *in general*. We're discussing a > particular case: When declarer's lead from the wrong hand may be a > deliberate attempt to gain advantage.. *May be*. That's the key phrase. Look, it is fully understandable that one wants to deprive the potential cheats of their gain. Even if the player made an inadverent mistake, he still broke the law and there is nothing unfair in adjusting his score to the pre-infraction state. It is something akin of a safety-belt. We don't have to decide whether this player had malicious motives or not. But PPs are a dfifferent kettle of fish. They are not necessairly an equivalent of accusation of cheating, that's true. But if you want to give them fairly, you have to give them consequently - for the same infractions made by the player's of the same status (experience, knowledge about laws, repeatness). Otherwise you are penalizing (differ that from the score correction) someone for a mere possibility of being a cheat. I gave you an example of conviction, reread it and think about it seriously. > 3. I suggested that we should judge the player's action in relation to > the hypothetical identical action by his peers. > Short of a confession, I don't understand how the director can be > certain. He must settle for a scale of probability. He must, but to avoid hurting the feelings of the honest players (and to avoid lawsuits) we have the clauses like "could have known" in the laws. And they concern only the score adjustments (rectifications), never penalizing. I repeat - giving a PP to someone solely on the basis that "he may be a cheat" is legal, but absurd. > 6. As far as PPs are concerned, the actual result is irrelevant. (Except > that there is rarely a director-call if an alleged infraction shows no > profit).. So you still see the light. Yes, PPs should be unrelated to the actual result. They are in fact equal to saying "you broke the correct procedure, you knew (or should have known) that procedure and your offence is serious enough or the frequency of identical offences is too high". > 7. In this specific case, if the director suspects declarer may have > known what he was doing, he should impose a PP even when the ploy > doesn't gain. He shouldn't. Look, I know that it is more than possible that LOOT in this position may be deliberate. But still some players could make it mistakenly. Taking away their gain is not unfair, because this gain was unavailable to them before the infraction. But giving them a PP (on the basis that they accidentally done something that the cheat might do) is too much. If you play football on the yard and accidentally break the window, you have to pay for the new glass (redress), you may be additionally penalised (if it is penalised regularly or of it is for the n-th time you did it) but you won't be convicted for theft (because someone who broke the window may have intended to steal something from the interior). > 8 Unfortunately, most players, like Maciej and John, regard a PP as > tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Hence, in practice, PPs are > rarely imposed. With the spread of so-called "Equity" laws, PPs become > essential to provide redress and deterrence. In this predicament, we > must try to change attitudes to PPs.. Nigel, I'm much closer to David Burn's death penalties than to "equity" supporters. And I share your opinion that the PPs are imposed too rarely. But if I wanted to penalise e.g. CsOOT, I would penalise them in every case, or in every case that the player makes COOT second time, or in every case that the player is experienced, or in every case it is done in Grand Prix tournament and not in a club game. But I wouldn't base the penalization on the seatment, on the odd/even round of bidding, on the outfit of the competitor or on my personal opinion about him. If you want to catch a cheat, note all of his infractions, collect the evidence, present it to the Disciplinary Committee and let them decide. That is their job. TD has near-God powers, but if he starts to abuse them... "Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed." Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 6 17:06:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:06:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Jan 5, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > Laurie Kelso, Editorial Comment: > 1. Was unauthorised information available to West? > 2. Did this information demonstrably suggest to > West the (5S) action chosen? > 3. Were there other logical alternative actions (i.e. > other than 5S) available to West? > 4. Were N/S damaged by the chosen action (5S)? These are the right questions, but I'd have put #3 before #2. > [Nigel] > 1. Probably. > 2. Yes. a hesitation suggests a double or bid rather than a pass. No. West's call wasn't "double or bid"; it was 5S. We've been here before. UI may tell West that either double or 5S will (probably) work out better than passing, while telling him neither that double will work out better than passing nor that *5S will work out better than passing*. The highlighted phrase matches Laurie's criterion #2, which is not necessarily met even if Nigel's "suggests a double or bid rather than a pass" is true. (Disclaimer: This is about such determinations in general, not taking a position on the actual thread case.) > 3. Yes. Pass. > 4. Yes. > 5. If the committee can't achieve consensus, it should uphold the > director's ruling. > 6. 12C3 fudges should be avaoided wherever possible. Unfortunately, > however, the new law-book does not allow the director scope for > objectivity, when there is an opportunity for incomprehensible > mumbo-jumbo. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Jan 6 17:19:50 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:19:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <496384A6.3080501@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> 5. If the committee can't achieve consensus, it should uphold the >> director's ruling. >> AG : I don't agree. If the AC can't achieve a decision as to whether some LA was *unmistakably* suggested, it wasn't ; else its members would all have seen it. Therefore, it should decide 'no use of UI', whatever the TD's decision was. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 6 17:27:12 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:27:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? In-Reply-To: <4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net> <003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2C4389ED-6F21-4FFD-96A0-5E7813802877@starpower.net> On Jan 6, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Bystry] > LOOT is LOOT, whether done by a cute young chick or an ugly old > savage, > whether in the second trick or tenth. If you wish you may give PPs to > the experienced players in the serious tournaments and refrain from > that > in the club games. If you wish you may (should) give them to the > repeated offenders (but then not only in the position from the actual > case, but in every position). But you certainly shouldn't give it > to the > player A ("I don't like him, I suspect he is a cheat") and not give it > to the player B ("I like him, I'm sure he is pure"). Wasn't it you who > ranted for many years about TDs' bias, subjective judgements etc? > > [Nigel] > Maciej and I are arguing at cross-purposes. IMO ... > 1. I was attempting to interpret the law as it *is* (not as it > should be). > 2 We aren't talking about LOOTs *in general*. We're discussing a > particular case: When declarer's lead from the wrong hand may be a > deliberate attempt to gain advantage.. > 3. I suggested that we should judge the player's action in relation to > the hypothetical identical action by his peers. > Short of a confession, I don't understand how the director can be > certain. He must settle for a scale of probability. > 4. I recognize that subjective judgement is often necessary. Arguably, > in this case, it is necessary. In the past (and in the new laws) > what I > criticise is what I regard as *superfluous* subjectivity, seemingly > introduced for the sake of sophistication. Perhaps to make the job of > lawmakers and directors more interesting and challenging. But > making the > law less comprehensible to ordinary players; reducing deterrence, and > (because subjective rulings are necessarily inconsistent) sacrificing > the appearance of justice. > 6. As far as PPs are concerned, the actual result is irrelevant. > (Except > that there is rarely a director-call if an alleged infraction shows no > profit).. Riiiiight! > 7. In this specific case, if the director suspects declarer may have > known what he was doing, he should impose a PP even when the ploy > doesn't gain. "When the ploy doesn't gain", South leads from hand, West says, "You're on the table," South puts his card back and leads from North, West gets the last trick, the result gets entered on the score sheet, and the table goes on the next hand. What director? > 8 Unfortunately, most players, like Maciej and John, regard a PP as > tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Hence, in practice, PPs are > rarely imposed. With the spread of so-called "Equity" laws, PPs become > essential to provide redress and deterrence. In this predicament, we > must try to change attitudes to PPs.. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 6 17:31:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:31:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? In-Reply-To: <000b01c97007$d5529190$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net><003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl> <4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net> <000b01c97007$d5529190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > >> 8 Unfortunately, most players, like Maciej and John, regard a PP as >> tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Hence, in practice, PPs are >> rarely imposed. With the spread of so-called "Equity" laws, PPs >> become >> essential to provide redress and deterrence. In this predicament, we >> must try to change attitudes to PPs.. > > +=+ We must leave Tournament Directors to decide how to use > their Law 90A discretion. However, the laws lend no credence > to any suggestion that assessment of a PP is "tantamount to an > accusation of cheating". Grattan and Nigel are both correct. The laws lend no credence to any suggestion that assessment of a PP is tantamount to an accusation of cheating, but most players do. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Jan 6 18:53:57 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:53:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net><003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl><4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net><000b01c97007$d5529190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000d01c97027$bfbc6480$15844c59@chello.pl> [Eric] > Grattan and Nigel are both correct. The laws lend no credence to any > suggestion that assessment of a PP is tantamount to an accusation of > cheating, but most players do. I don't know about most players. But if Nigel wants to give a PP to the player A, who accidentally happened to make a LOOT in my example, but doesn't want to give a PP to the player B (without previous infraction history and of similar experience as player A), who accidentally happened to make a LOOT in another position (it resulted in "damage", but B couldn't have known), then player A will feel that a PP is tantamount to an accusation of cheating. Feel? If he listens to Nigel, he will *know* it. You are a reasonable person Eric. Think about it, why do the players have such feelings? I'll tell you, because PPs are inconsistently given, they frequently depend on whether there was damage or not (although they shouldn't), they depend on the personalities and relations between TDs and the players, they depend on much other things they should not depend on. In short - the PPs depend on a whim of a TD. And as long as something depends on a whim of anyone, its application will be perceived as unfair and unequal. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Jan 6 21:51:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:51:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Beneficial LOOT? In-Reply-To: <000d01c97027$bfbc6480$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c96d25$88b12ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962ABAA.8030905@talktalk.net><001701c96f9c$ddaf3c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4962B9C8.3010603@talktalk.net><003701c96faa$d8852e20$15844c59@chello.pl><4963582A.6050506@talktalk.net><000b01c97007$d5529190$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000d01c97027$bfbc6480$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:53 PM, Bystry wrote: > [Eric] > >> Grattan and Nigel are both correct. The laws lend no credence to any >> suggestion that assessment of a PP is tantamount to an accusation of >> cheating, but most players do. > > I don't know about most players. But if Nigel wants to give a PP to > the > player A, who accidentally happened to make a LOOT in my example, but > doesn't want to give a PP to the player B (without previous infraction > history and of similar experience as player A), who accidentally > happened to > make a LOOT in another position (it resulted in "damage", but B > couldn't > have known), then player A will feel that a PP is tantamount to an > accusation of cheating. Feel? If he listens to Nigel, he will > *know* it. > > You are a reasonable person Eric. Think about it, why do the > players have > such feelings? I'll tell you, because PPs are inconsistently given, > they > frequently depend on whether there was damage or not (although they > shouldn't), they depend on the personalities and relations between > TDs and > the players, they depend on much other things they should not > depend on. In > short - the PPs depend on a whim of a TD. And as long as something > depends > on a whim of anyone, its application will be perceived as unfair and > unequal. Absolutely. Maciej understands perfectly well how the majority of players view PPs. I merely point out that Grattan is also entirely correct to assert that legally, theoretically, officially, there is absolutely no justification in the majestic words of The Law for players to feel that way. Which will surely reassure those who are in the business of making laws and handing them down from the mountaintops, but which will mean nothing to those of us who actually run (and play in) ordinary real-life games, deal with typical customers every day, and know very well that they nevertheless do. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Jan 7 07:24:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:24:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <645AC9C0-4B95-4011-8EF0-A4B93A9D8498@starpower.net> Message-ID: David Prerau, Saving the Daylight, page 183: "In 1971, the Indiana legislature followed the wishes of the majority and passed a Uniform Time Act exemption law. When Daylight Saving Time began nationwide in April, most of Indiana remained on eastern standard time, and the two western corners of the state on Central Standard Time became small "Islands of Time", surrounded by areas whose time was one hour later -- Central Daylight Time to the west and eastern standard time to the east." Eric Landau: [snip] >is it at all reasonable to assume that West can have any >awareness [snip] >(don't all subjective decisions approach 50-50 guesses as >the time available in which to make them approaches zero?)? Richard Hills: Sure, "demonstrably suggested" is a subjective decision about disputed facts by the Director (perhaps in consultation with peers of West). But that is one of the purposes of the "balance of probabilities" Law 85. Ergo, it is at all reasonable to assume that a Director can assess West's awareness (or otherwise) relatively quickly, without the Director needing a visit to an Island of Time to steal an extra hour's cogitation. 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 Jan 7 08:12:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 18:12:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <496384A6.3080501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Laurie Kelso: [snip] >>Most committees arrive at a decision without having >>to resort to a majority vote. Here however a vote >>appears to have been necessary. This is the reason >>why committees usually comprise an odd number of >>members. [snip] Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : I don't agree. If the AC can't achieve a decision >some LA was *unmistakably* suggested, it wasn't ; else >its members would all have seen it. > >Therefore, it should decide 'no use of UI', whatever >the TD's decision was. Richard Hills: Well, the point of Laurie's argument was that the AC _must_ achieve a decision about whether or not an infraction occurred, if necessary by 3-2 vote. The Kiwi appeal was an Awful Warning as to what happens when an AC ignored the fact that Law 85B (Facts Not Determined) still requires "...he makes a ruling...". If Alain is arguing that an AC minority has the power to over-rule both an AC majority and also the Director on a Law 85A "balance of probabilities" ruling, then that is just silly. Plus Alain is misquoting Law 16; the phrase is not the strong "unmistakably suggested" but rather the weak "demonstrably suggested". 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 Wed Jan 7 10:19:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:19:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000701c970a9$0db15840$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:12 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Laurie Kelso: > > [snip] > >>>Most committees arrive at a decision without having >>>to resort to a majority vote. Here however a vote >>>appears to have been necessary. This is the reason >>>why committees usually comprise an odd number of >>>members. > > [snip] > +=+ As an incidental aside, I can report that some time ago certain of my American colleagues were quite taken aback when I made it known that if I found myself (as I have) in the chair of an appeal committee of four, and the voting is tied, my practice has been to cast my additional vote in favour of the Director's decision, regardless of how my first vote was cast. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Wed Jan 7 12:50:48 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:50:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c970a9$0db15840$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000701c970a9$0db15840$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000301c970be$2ebee790$8c3cb6b0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > > [snip] > > > +=+ As an incidental aside, I can report that some time ago > certain of my American colleagues were quite taken aback > when I made it known that if I found myself (as I have) in > the chair of an appeal committee of four, and the voting is tied, > my practice has been to cast my additional vote in favour of > the Director's decision, regardless of how my first vote was > cast. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Isn't it customary in most, if not all aspects of appeals that when the higher court cannot reach a decision then the ruling from the lower court stands? I am only surprised that your American colleagues were "taken aback". And a happy new year to you, Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jan 7 13:36:05 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:36:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4964A1B5.8060208@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > Well, the point of Laurie's argument was that the AC > _must_ achieve a decision about whether or not an > infraction occurred, if necessary by 3-2 vote. The Kiwi > appeal was an Awful Warning as to what happens when an > AC ignored the fact that Law 85B (Facts Not Determined) > still requires "...he makes a ruling...". > AG : IMNSHO, and in L85, "balance of probabilities" applies to disputed facts, not to the consequences of undisputed facts. The existence of an hesitation is covered by L85 ; illegal UI use after an ascertaied hesitation isn't. > If Alain is arguing that an AC minority has the power to > over-rule both an AC majority and also the Director on a > Law 85A "balance of probabilities" ruling, then that is > just silly. > AG : surely you've seen "twelve angry men". Is this movie silly ? > Plus Alain is misquoting Law 16; the phrase is not the > strong "unmistakably suggested" but rather the weak > "demonstrably suggested". > > AG : I have a big problem with the French version. The word is "indiscutablement" (unquestionably). Whence, if there is something to question, this law shan't be applied. Now, if you tell me the English version is so much different, something needs to be done about this difference. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 7 14:05:47 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:05:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000701c970a9$0db15840$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000301c970be$2ebee790$8c3cb6b0$@no> Message-ID: <000701c970c8$febba410$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 11:50 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Behalf Of Grattan >> > [snip] >> > >> +=+ As an incidental aside, I can report that some time ago >> certain of my American colleagues were quite taken aback >> when I made it known that if I found myself (as I have) in >> the chair of an appeal committee of four, and the voting is tied, >> my practice has been to cast my additional vote in favour of >> the Director's decision, regardless of how my first vote was >> cast. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Isn't it customary in most, if not all aspects of appeals that when the > higher court cannot reach a decision then the ruling from the lower court > stands? > +=+ I was brought up, indeed, within such an ethos. +=+ << > I am only surprised that your American colleagues were "taken aback". > +=+ Those concerned believed that the Chairman should reinforce his own point of view - and considered this 'normal'. My private reflevction, that long ago, was that Zone 2 was less appreciative of its TD's judgements than were we in Europe. I believe much has changed now in this regard. +=+ ,,, > And a happy new year to you, > > Regards Sven > +=+ And to you, Sven. +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 7 14:10:14 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:10:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl><431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1><5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN><200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><88AF9BBC6A8D4D1B896A7FF8EEACA875@JOHN> <001401c96fcd$cfab0400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Custom adapts itself to expediency." > (Tacitus) > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>>----- Original Message ----- > > .................................[snip]................................................... >>> Exactly so. Apparently after my 2H, partner is going to bid >>> 2S (exposing his lack of psych), so I bid 3S. He is going >>> to play the hand, and he is a better player. WTP >> >> Playing in 4H? Going off in 3N? 2H is GF facing a 5-count - > Yowzers. >> > +=+ "exposing his lack of psych" - on what basis, other than > a CPU, can there be any suggestion of a psyche? Come on Grattan, we can take safety plays agains psyches eg; pard opens 2N and you hold Kx KQJxx AJx KQx. It's obvious to me to bid 3H (transfer) and argue with the AC when pard passes it. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Jan 7 14:16:33 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:16:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000701c970a9$0db15840$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 9:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Custom adapts itself to expediency." > (Tacitus) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:12 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> Laurie Kelso: >> >> [snip] >> >>>>Most committees arrive at a decision without having >>>>to resort to a majority vote. Here however a vote >>>>appears to have been necessary. This is the reason >>>>why committees usually comprise an odd number of >>>>members. >> >> [snip] >> > +=+ As an incidental aside, I can report that some time ago > certain of my American colleagues were quite taken aback > when I made it known that if I found myself (as I have) in > the chair of an appeal committee of four, and the voting is tied, > my practice has been to cast my additional vote in favour of > the Director's decision, regardless of how my first vote was > cast. I think this is "standing orders". I'm sure it's right. John > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Jan 7 14:36:06 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 14:36:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4964A1B5.8060208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c970cc$e4bb76e0$15844c59@chello.pl> [Alain] I have a big problem with the French version. The word is "indiscutablement" (unquestionably). Whence, if there is something to question, this law shan't be applied. Now, if you tell me the English version is so much different, something needs to be done about this difference. [Me] Wow. Now I'm beginning to understand why was Alain always so keen on letting people slide on the basis of not "demonstrably suggested". It always shocked me when I was reading BLML archives and I thought there were only his personal preferences. Actually the cause shouldn't be so shocking. Polish translation of 1997 laws was also full of unadequate formulations. 2007 one is much better, surely the present translators (Konrad?) deserve credit. Anyway, you are right that something needs to be done. French translation should be corrected. Otherwise more people may be misguided. French approach would require all the people fully agreeing with the "suggestion", something totally opposed to the LA approach. There is always a possibility to find someone who will misjudge the situation and claim that for him something else was suggested. And in most situations the reason for the hesitation may be different depending on the actual hand, e.g. with 75% probabbility on wanting to bid more, with 25% probability on wanting to double, so following Alain's approach hesitator's partner would be odds-on to bid but we wouldn't be able to adjust. Only clear-cut cases, like slow penalty doubles, would be adjusted. Letting most of the UI abusers to avoid adjustments is certainly not the intent of the laws. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Jan 7 14:47:50 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:47:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47C66ED6-1B32-4589-AAA2-EACE76B6DAF3@starpower.net> On Jan 7, 2009, at 2:12 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Laurie Kelso: > > [snip] > >>> Most committees arrive at a decision without having >>> to resort to a majority vote. Here however a vote >>> appears to have been necessary. This is the reason >>> why committees usually comprise an odd number of >>> members. > > [snip] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > >> AG : I don't agree. If the AC can't achieve a decision >> some LA was *unmistakably* suggested, it wasn't ; else >> its members would all have seen it. >> >> Therefore, it should decide 'no use of UI', whatever >> the TD's decision was. > > Richard Hills: > > Well, the point of Laurie's argument was that the AC > _must_ achieve a decision about whether or not an > infraction occurred, if necessary by 3-2 vote. The Kiwi > appeal was an Awful Warning as to what happens when an > AC ignored the fact that Law 85B (Facts Not Determined) > still requires "...he makes a ruling...". > > If Alain is arguing that an AC minority has the power to > over-rule both an AC majority and also the Director on a > Law 85A "balance of probabilities" ruling, then that is > just silly. > > Plus Alain is misquoting Law 16; the phrase is not the > strong "unmistakably suggested" but rather the weak > "demonstrably suggested". That should be "weak*er*"; "weak" is a demonstrable overbid. We shouldn't forget that not all that long ago our lawmakers changed the criterion from "reasonably suggested" to "demonstrably suggested" so as to explicitly strengthen it. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jan 7 16:16:53 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:16:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ Message-ID: <4964C765.6040206@nhcc.net> Grattan Endicott Zone 2 was less appreciative of > its TD's judgements than were we in Europe. I don't, alas, have direct knowledge of Europe, but I am sad to report that there is still good reason in my part of Zone 2 to be "less than appreciative" of the judgments of many of our TDs. (Note "many," not "all," a deliberate choice on my part.) From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Jan 7 16:42:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:42:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl><431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1><5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN><200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><88AF9BBC6A8D4D1B896A7FF8EEACA875@JOHN><001401c96fcd$cfab0400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001c01c970de$83758ee0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Custom adapts itself to expediency." >> (Tacitus) >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>>>----- Original Message ----- >> >> .................................[snip]................................................... >>>> Exactly so. Apparently after my 2H, partner is going to bid >>>> 2S (exposing his lack of psych), so I bid 3S. He is going >>>> to play the hand, and he is a better player. WTP >>> >>> Playing in 4H? Going off in 3N? 2H is GF facing a 5-count - >> Yowzers. >>> >> +=+ "exposing his lack of psych" - on what basis, other than >> a CPU, can there be any suggestion of a psyche? > > Come on Grattan, we can take safety plays agains psyches eg; pard opens 2N > and you hold > Kx KQJxx AJx KQx. It's obvious to me to bid 3H (transfer) and argue with > the AC when pard passes it. John > +=+ Two questions. Do you bid 3H (transfer) without the Diamond Knave and with three small clubs? In the example we were actually discussing, what comparisons would you make with the situation you have mooted here? ~ G ~ +=+ From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Jan 7 18:09:02 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 06:09:02 +1300 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560901070909w4c586b5asf58fd5047289bf86@mail.gmail.com> 2009/1/7 Eric Landau : > On Jan 5, 2009, at 8:12 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> [Richard Hills] >> Laurie Kelso, Editorial Comment: >> 1. Was unauthorised information available to West? >> 2. Did this information demonstrably suggest to >> West the (5S) action chosen? >> 3. Were there other logical alternative actions (i.e. >> other than 5S) available to West? >> 4. Were N/S damaged by the chosen action (5S)? > > These are the right questions, but I'd have put #3 before #2. > >From the WBF code of practice: "When use of unauthorized information made available by partner is alleged there are four key questions for the appeal committee: 1. Does the accused player have unauthorized information in consequence of an action by his partner? 2. Could the unauthorized information suggest demonstrably the action that was taken by the player who possessed it? 3. Were there logical alternatives (or was there a logical alternative) that the player could have selected in place of the action that is questioned? Law 16 B 1 (b) defines: 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. 4. Have opponents been damaged in consequence of the player's action when in possession of the unauthorized information?" -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From john at asimere.com Thu Jan 8 06:36:19 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 05:36:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl><431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1><5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN><200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><88AF9BBC6A8D4D1B896A7FF8EEACA875@JOHN><001401c96fcd$cfab0400$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001c01c970de$83758ee0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <915499F5BD774077B9A0448BA2CB591A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 3:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Custom adapts itself to expediency." > (Tacitus) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 1:10 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "Custom adapts itself to expediency." >>> (Tacitus) >>> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>>>>----- Original Message ----- >>> >>> .................................[snip]................................................... >>>>> Exactly so. Apparently after my 2H, partner is going to bid >>>>> 2S (exposing his lack of psych), so I bid 3S. He is going >>>>> to play the hand, and he is a better player. WTP >>>> >>>> Playing in 4H? Going off in 3N? 2H is GF facing a 5-count - >>> Yowzers. >>>> >>> +=+ "exposing his lack of psych" - on what basis, other than >>> a CPU, can there be any suggestion of a psyche? >> >> Come on Grattan, we can take safety plays agains psyches eg; pard opens >> 2N >> and you hold >> Kx KQJxx AJx KQx. It's obvious to me to bid 3H (transfer) and argue with >> the AC when pard passes it. John >> > +=+ Two questions. Do you bid 3H (transfer) without the Diamond Knave and > with > three small clubs? I'd bid 3D transfer with 13 facing 20. >In the example we were actually discussing, what > comparisons > would you make with the situation you have mooted here? None really, but I was trying to point out one can find positions where it is just bad bridge not to protect oneself from even a Sharples (they never psyched) misdemeanour. John > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Jan 8 08:48:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 07:48:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Hermione and ... [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <16C872FCD1AB44B5AD91EA2E95A46DBA@MARVLAPTOP><200901020637.n026bJDh022270@mail12.syd.optusnet.com.au><200901040541.n045fASZ016140@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au><001301c96e51$751b4ea0$15844c59@chello.pl><431986D3BC0E4451BA64A41A91CCA3D7@sfora4869e47f1><5F1F8A970D094F459B28157CC80A0E3C@JOHN><200901050515.n055Fan5003703@mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au><88AF9BBC6A8D4D1B896A7FF8EEACA875@JOHN><001401c96fcd$cfab0400$0302a8c0@Mildred><001c01c970de$83758ee0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <915499F5BD774077B9A0448BA2CB591A@JOHN> Message-ID: <002b01c97165$7d8c44b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott>In the example we were actually discussing, what >> comparisons >> would you make with the situation you have mooted here? > > None really, but I was trying to point out one can find positions where it > is just bad bridge not to protect oneself from even a Sharples (they never > psyched) misdemeanour. John > +=+ And I was making the point that I had seen nothing in then thread to suggest that there was any evidence in the position previously under discussion to suggest that your point was applicable there. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From bobpark at consolidated.net Thu Jan 8 15:33:45 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:33:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560901070909w4c586b5asf58fd5047289bf86@mail.gmail.com> References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> <2a1c3a560901070909w4c586b5asf58fd5047289bf86@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49660EC9.4090702@consolidated.net> Wayne Burrows wrote >> >From the WBF code of practice: >> >> "When use of unauthorized information made available by partner is >> alleged there are four key >> questions for the appeal committee: >> >> 1. Does the accused player have unauthorized information in >> consequence of an action by his >> partner? >> 2. Could the unauthorized information suggest demonstrably the action >> that was taken by >> the player who possessed it? >> 3. Were there logical alternatives (or was there a logical >> alternative) that the player could >> have selected in place of the action that is questioned? >> Law 16 B 1 (b) defines: >> 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. >> 4. Have opponents been damaged in consequence of the player's action >> when in possession >> of the unauthorized information?" >> >> I have sat on appeals committees (ACBL) that were not provided these guidelines. Is it possible the WBF has been remiss in it duties to require such guidelines be provided A/Cs (in writing)? Or has the WBF no such duty? --Bob Park From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Jan 8 16:25:43 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:25:43 +0000 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: <49660EC9.4090702@consolidated.net> References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> <2a1c3a560901070909w4c586b5asf58fd5047289bf86@mail.gmail.com> <49660EC9.4090702@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <49661AF7.9090707@talktalk.net> [Bob Park] I have sat on appeals committees (ACBL) that were not provided these guidelines. Is it possible the WBF has been remiss in it duties to require such guidelines be provided A/Cs (in writing)? Or has the WBF no such duty? [Nigel] The buck shuttles indefinitely among NBOs, the WBF, and the WBFLC. The buck won't stop anywhere until the WBF takes complete responsibility for Ruling the game of Bridge, including - - canvassing *player's* opinions as widely as possible (It is futile to delegate this task to NBOs that consult a few administrators but no ordinary players). - collating regulations, laws, minutes (and so on) into a single, comprehensive, coherent, internally consistent document. - maintaining an *up-to-date* version of that document, by inserting changes, illustrative examples, and so on, in place. - disseminating such information to *players* (not just to selected directors and administrators) Realistically, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Until the WBFLC is prepared to produce a *complete* set of default rules, each NBO should do its best to fill gaps in the WBFLC and WBF publications by concocting its own local regulations and integrate the whole caboodle into a single-source local document. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Jan 8 21:58:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:58:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: <49661AF7.9090707@talktalk.net> References: <4962B001.105@talktalk.net> <2a1c3a560901070909w4c586b5asf58fd5047289bf86@mail.gmail.com> <49660EC9.4090702@consolidated.net> <49661AF7.9090707@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <19F02976-8037-4218-B97D-1C5E969C61E9@starpower.net> On Jan 8, 2009, at 10:25 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Bob Park] > I have sat on appeals committees (ACBL) that were not provided these > guidelines. Is it possible the WBF has been remiss in it duties to > require such guidelines be provided A/Cs (in writing)? Or has the > WBF no > such duty? > > [Nigel] > The buck shuttles indefinitely among NBOs, the WBF, and the WBFLC. > The buck won't stop anywhere until the WBF takes complete > responsibility for Ruling the game of Bridge, including - > > - canvassing *player's* opinions as widely as possible (It is > futile to delegate this task to NBOs that consult a few > administrators but no ordinary players). > > - collating regulations, laws, minutes (and so on) into a single, > comprehensive, coherent, internally consistent document. > > - maintaining an *up-to-date* version of that document, by > inserting changes, illustrative examples, and so on, in place. > > - disseminating such information to *players* (not just to selected > directors and administrators) > > Realistically, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Until > the WBFLC is prepared to produce a *complete* set of default rules, > each NBO should do its best to fill gaps in the WBFLC and WBF > publications by concocting its own local regulations and integrate > the whole caboodle into a single-source local document. It's only a bit less likely than the WBF deciding to change the official language of bridge from English to Sanskrit. The WBF has made it clear that it has no interest in taking on such responsibilities. They are, and will remain, entirely delegated to and entirely the responsibility of the NBOs, whom the WBF regard as their constituency. They have no use for players, directors, or any other actual human beings, but interact only with those individuals who speak officially for their NBOs. Whether or not you belive this is a reasonable position (which I do not gainsay here), it ain't gonna change. The very best we can hope for is that the WBF, notwithstanding their refusal (inability?) to exercise any actual authority over their affiliated NBOs, will at least take responsibility for monitoring the willingness of the NBOs to actually fulfill those delegated responsibilities, and bring the power of their moral suasion to bear (IOW, say something out loud, ferchrissake!) when some NBO patently fails to live up to its obligations to its own members, who are, after all, actual people. Realistically, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From geller at nifty.com Thu Jan 8 22:34:43 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:34:43 +0900 Subject: [blml] Average IQ In-Reply-To: <19F02976-8037-4218-B97D-1C5E969C61E9@starpower.net> References: <19F02976-8037-4218-B97D-1C5E969C61E9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <200901082134.AA17416@geller204.nifty.com> Eric Landau wriote: >The very best we can hope for is that the WBF, notwithstanding their >refusal (inability?) to exercise any actual authority over their >affiliated NBOs, will at least take responsibility for monitoring the >willingness of the NBOs to actually fulfill those delegated >responsibilities, and bring the power of their moral suasion to bear >(IOW, say something out loud, ferchrissake!) when some NBO patently >fails to live up to its obligations to its own members, who are, >after all, actual people. > >Realistically, this is unlikely to happen in the near future. Or disaffected members of the NBO, if they feel their Federation's officers are failing in their responsibilities, could organize a campaign to change the officers through the election process of their federation. (Even if such an effort is unsuccessful it would tend to encourage the incumbent officers to perform their duties more diligently.) Or the disaffected could get involved as members of laws-related committees in their NBOs. I suspect that in most NBOs there is a shortage of willing and competenet volunteers and that new blood would be welcomed in most cases. -Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Jan 9 02:02:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:02:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4964A1B5.8060208@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>If Alain is arguing that an AC minority has the power to >>over-rule both an AC majority and also the Director on a >>Law 85A "balance of probabilities" ruling, then that is >>just silly. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : surely you've seen "twelve angry men". Is this movie >silly ? Richard Hills: If this movie was remade in Sydney today, its new title would be "Ten Happy Women", since New South Wales juries need no longer be unanimous, but now can make decisions about guilt or innocence via a 10-2 majority vote. On the other hand, some Appeals Committees use an informal rule that they will not deem an appeal meritless unless they are unanimous in that belief. On the other other hand, some EBU Appeals Committees tend to rule meritless appeals have merit, possibly because the EBU still employs monetary deposits, so those EBU Appeals Committees do not wish to impoverish the ignorant or the indigent. Alexander Pope (1688-1744): "Get place and wealth, if possible with grace; If not, by any means get wealth and place." 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 Jan 9 02:26:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:26:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] Average IQ [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c970c8$febba410$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >>certain of my American colleagues were quite taken aback >+=+ Those concerned believed that the Chairman should reinforce >his own point of view - and considered this 'normal'. Richard Hills: Compare and contrast the nature of the Speaker of the American House of Representatives and the Speaker of the British House of Commons. Nancy Pelosi was the de facto leader of the Democratic Party opposition in 2007. Meanwhile Michael Martin resigned from the Labour Party upon his election as House of Commons Speaker in October 2000, following the tradition that British Speakers are impartial. By convention, if a British Speaker is ever called upon to exercise their casting vote, it must be in favour of the status quo. (This nearly saved the Callaghan government from a No Confidence motion in 1979. However, one Labour MP was too ill to attend, so the motion was carried by one vote with the Speaker's casting vote not required.) 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 torsten.astrand at telia.com Tue Jan 6 14:48:02 2009 From: torsten.astrand at telia.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Torsten_=C5strand?=) Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:48:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27.B.1.b again Message-ID: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> 1NT-P-1H* TD is sure 1H-bidder didn?t see 1NT. Is it OK to change to 4C even when he only has 4 hearts? Partner must explain 4C as 6+ hearts? And now Law 27 D is actual. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090106/1e2beb69/attachment.htm From posundelin at yahoo.se Thu Jan 8 17:09:32 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 16:09:32 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids Message-ID: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, The bidding goes 1spade - pass -?1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? If so it opens up for all sorts of clever slam tries starting at a lower level than for all non-sinners. ? I thought that the intention of the lawmakers would be to allow some artificial game force support bid like Jacoby 2NT, but NOT a nonforcing 2spades PO Sundelin __________________________________________________________ Ta semester! - s?k efter resor hos Kelkoo. J?mf?r pris p? flygbiljetter och hotellrum h?r: http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090108/fa002974/attachment.htm From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 9 10:29:16 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:29:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Insufficient_bids?= In-Reply-To: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> From: PO Sundelin > I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, ?The bidding goes > 1spade - pass - 1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. > Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for > opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? As long as responder did not make available his intention why he bid 1 spades, it is AI for opener, YES (see Law 27 B1a: "[...] Law 16D does not apply but see D following"). > If so it opens up for all sorts of clever slam tries starting at a lower > level than for all non-sinners. ? NO, for (exact) that purpose there is Law 27 D: "If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the nonoffending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. [...]" > I thought that the intention of the lawmakers > would be to allow some artificial game force support bid like Jacoby > 2NT, but NOT a nonforcing 2spades PO Sundelin From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 9 10:44:30 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:44:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_27=2EB=2E1=2Eb_again?= In-Reply-To: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> References: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <1LLDuo-1MQZ040@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> From: Torsten ?strand > 1NT-P-1H* > TD is sure 1H-bidder didn?t see 1NT. > > Is it OK to change to 4C even when he only has 4 ?hearts? surely it is OK, but maybe partner must pass now ... ;-) 6+ hearts is more specific than 4+ hearts, but if the agreement is to bid 4C (showing hearts) with values less than a 1H opening (say 8+ points) or with hands that are not opened with 1H but with another opening (say 2H ...), then 4C is not a bid allowing opener to attend the further bidding; opener will have to pass for the remainder of the auction. > Partner must explain 4C as 6+ hearts? YES, but partner should perhaps start with "systematically it shows ..." > And now Law 27 D is ?actual. YES, always when either partner is misdescribing his hand now or trying to field such a (potential) misdescription. From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Jan 9 10:56:03 2009 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 10:56:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:09:32 +0100, PO Sundelin wrote: > I?m not sure of proper procedure here: > Anyway, > The bidding goes 1spade - pass -?1spade > The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. > Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for > opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? If so it opens > up for all sorts of clever slam tries starting at a lower level than for > all non-sinners. > ? > I thought that the intention of the lawmakers would be to allow some > artificial game force support bid like Jacoby 2NT, but NOT a nonforcing > 2spades Quote from the EBL seminar in May 2008 (Max Bavin): 2. Misbids and fielded misbids. Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) work on the assumption that when the IB-er selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually conforms to the newly selected bid. However, this will not necessarily be the case. For example, it may make perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the auction open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which silences partner. It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that the IB-er may be ?misbidding?, and to cater for (?field?) this possibility. All this is entirely legal ? it is general bridge knowledge covered by Law 16A1(d). This is why Law 27D exists. If the player does misbid, or if his partner attempts to cater for it (regardless of whether there has been an actual misbid or not), then Law 27D may apply. Note, however, that adjustments under Law 27D are entirely different to Law 16-type adjustments. A Law 27D adjustment is back to the probable outcome of the board had the IB never occurred in the first place. Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Fri Jan 9 11:05:09 2009 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:05:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Code of Practice 2008 Message-ID: Hello all, I have just noticed (a little late, I know) that the 2008 CoP does not contain sections 2 and 3 (appeal examples and guidelines for rulings). Is there an official position whether the old ones are still relevant or cancelled? Or do we have to decide for ourselves on a case-to-case basis? Regards, Petrus -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Jan 9 11:09:22 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:09:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49672252.5060205@skynet.be> PO Sundelin wrote: > I?m not sure of proper procedure here: > Anyway, > The bidding goes 1spade - pass - 1spade > The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. > Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for > opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? If so it opens > up for all sorts of clever slam tries starting at a lower level than for > all non-sinners. > That part of it is easy - if the TD determines that the final contract would not be reached without the insufficient bid, then she can award an AS. So the clever slam tries are not on the books. > I thought that the intention of the lawmakers would be to allow some > artificial game force support bid like Jacoby 2NT, but NOT a nonforcing > 2spades > PO Sundelin > Well, the intention of the lawmakers also was to make the laws easier, so they allowed the natural 2S as well. Which only leaves the problem of UI. L16D2 says that for the offending side, then information in the withdrawn call (here the second 1S) is UI. But L27B1a (the law authorizing the raise to 2S) explicitely states that L16D does not apply. It does refer to L27D, which is the one I mentioned higher. So the raise to 4S must be allowed, but clever slam tries shall not be. Herman. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > L?na pengar utan s?kerhet. > S?k och j?mf?r l?n hos Kelkoo. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 9 11:16:18 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:16:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002401c97243$50539500$15844c59@chello.pl> [PO Sundelin] I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, The bidding goes 1spade - pass - 1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? If so it opens up for all sorts of clever slam tries starting at a lower level than for all non-sinners. I thought that the intention of the lawmakers would be to allow some artificial game force support bid like Jacoby 2NT, but NOT a nonforcing 2spades [Maciej] There are two different ways to correct an insufficient bid. You are writing about the second one: [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] So changing 1S to some artificial calls (like 2NT GF with support) may be done according to this point. But changing 1S to 2S is covered by another point (both are incontrovertibly not artificial): [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] As you can see Law 16D does not apply, so the fact that the responder may have a better hand than normally is not UI to the opener. As far as I know it was an intention of the lawmakers. Point (b) is present only since 2007 revision, earlier only point (a) was available (although in a slightly different form, i.e. both bids had to be non-conventional). The lawmakers wanted to make the board influenced by an insufficient bid playable, not to force the responder to guess the final contract. In most cases it applies to unharmful corrections, like 2H-1S (corrected to 2S), but sometimes it may appear beneficial to the OS, like in your example. So there remains: [L27] D. Non-offending Side Damaged. If following the application of B1 the Director judges at the end of the play that without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could well have been different and in consequence the non- offending side is damaged (see Law 12B1), he shall award an adjusted score. In his adjustment he should seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the insufficient bid not occurred. [/L] Both (a) and (b) above direct the TD to this part of the law. So if he judges that thanks to the additional bidding space the OS obtained better score than they would obtain without the insufficient bid, he has to adjust. Of course villains may try some shenanigans like bidding 1S deliberately in hope that the TD will fail in his efforts and misapply L27D. But it is an old discussion - laws of bridge vs cheats. Most of the laws have some safeguards to stop the cheats from gaining anything, but in order to catch and punish them we practically have to prove cheating. So if the particular pair wants to make deliberate insufficient bids and they are careful and temperate doing this, they will very probably slide through (although without much gain). If they overdo, they may gain more but they risk getting PPs and even an expulsion. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Jan 9 11:55:32 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:55:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27.B.1.b again References: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <006101c97248$cb518960$15844c59@chello.pl> [Torsten] 1NT-P-1H* TD is sure 1H-bidder didn?t see 1NT. Is it OK to change to 4C even when he only has 4 hearts? [Maciej] Possible, but not probable. You didn't give us their system, but let's say 1H opening shows 11-21(18) HCP and 4(5)+ hearts and excludes some things like 5+ spades, GF hands, NT hands of systemic strength etc. So every correction must mean exactly the same or be more precise while still inside the given frames. So e.g. bid showing 7 hearts and 13-15 HCP is ok, bid showing 5+ hearts, exactly 4 spades and 12-17 HCP is ok (in both cases the responder's hand may be different than shown), but bid showing 6+ hearts and 20-24 HCP is not allowed (because 1H was limited by 21(18) HCP) and bid showing 5+ 5+ in majors 12-16 HCP is not allowed (5+ spades were excluded by 1H opening). So if 4C shows 6+ hearts and its systemic strength is in the range of 11-21(18), the correction is allowed (and the responder may do this even with only 4 hearts). If it may be outside of this range (e.g. 10-15 or 11+ or 16-22) the penalty-free correction is not allowed. [Torsten] Partner must explain 4C as 6+ hearts? [Maciej] Partner has to explain every substituted bid according to the system. It is a general bridge knowledge that such substitution doesn't have to reflect exactly the contents of the responder's hand. [Torsten] And now Law 27 D is actual. [Maciej] Yes. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 9 13:17:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:17:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49674063.7040203@ulb.ac.be> Peter Eidt a ?crit : > From: PO Sundelin > >> I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, The bidding goes >> 1spade - pass - 1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. >> Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for >> opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? >> > > As long as responder did not make available his intention > why he bid 1 spades, it is AI for opener, YES > (see Law 27 B1a: "[...] Law 16D does not apply but > see D following"). > > AG : BTW, the information that responder has opening values is totally inexistent, as he might as well have been respoinding 1S to 1C. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 9 13:38:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27.B.1.b again In-Reply-To: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> References: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <49674551.80100@ulb.ac.be> Torsten ?strand a ?crit : > 1NT-P-1H* > TD is sure 1H-bidder didn?t see 1NT. > Is it OK to change to 4C even when he only has 4 hearts? AG : assume a strong NT. Then 4C may be rather weak. Therefore it won't be allowed because the 1H bid says something 4C doesn't (opening values). To the contrary, a strong 3H bid should be allowed. > Partner must explain 4C as 6+ hearts? AG : now assume mini-NT. Now 4C is indeed a subset of 1H. Partner should explain as "wants to make me play 4H". That's the meaning of the bid. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jan 9 13:38:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:38:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27.B.1.b again In-Reply-To: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> References: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <49674551.80100@ulb.ac.be> Torsten ?strand a ?crit : > 1NT-P-1H* > TD is sure 1H-bidder didn?t see 1NT. > Is it OK to change to 4C even when he only has 4 hearts? AG : assume a strong NT. Then 4C may be rather weak. Therefore it won't be allowed because the 1H bid says something 4C doesn't (opening values). To the contrary, a strong 3H bid should be allowed. > Partner must explain 4C as 6+ hearts? AG : now assume mini-NT. Now 4C is indeed a subset of 1H. Partner should explain as "wants to make me play 4H". That's the meaning of the bid. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 9 15:45:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:45:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 27.B.1.b again In-Reply-To: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> References: <16EA546414064D19B7CDB08FE4B50200@home4paplwv76s> Message-ID: <69D2D869-C4B6-417E-AC25-4C49DD711F6F@starpower.net> On Jan 6, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Torsten ?strand wrote: > 1NT-P-1H* > TD is sure 1H-bidder didn?t see 1NT. Under the (recently published) ACBL guidelines for applying L27B, this is not a judgment call but an established fact, which the TD would have ascertsined from the IBer (away from the table). > Is it OK to change to 4C even when he only has 4 hearts? No, he may not substitute 4C under L27B1. This is not, however, because he has only four hearts (he could have had six for P-P-1H), but because 4C does not promise an opening bid, so does not therefore have "more precise meaning than the IB" (the systemic meaning of 1NT- P-4C includes hands that would not be covered by the systemic meaning of P-P-1H). > Partner must explain 4C as 6+ hearts? Doesn't apply here, but sure, regardless of circumstances, you must always explain the "meaning" of partner's call in accordance with your (explicit and implicit) partnership agreements. > And now Law 27 D is actual. L27D applies whenever L27B1 has been invoked. Keep in mind, though, that after a L27B1(b) correction, L27D applies only to cases where the mechanics of the auction would have led to a different result absent the IB. You cannot adjust the score based on use of UI from the IB, because if (as in this example) there would be any UI from the IB, you would not have allowed a L27B1(b) correction initially. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 9 16:38:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:38:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Jan 8, 2009, at 11:09 AM, PO Sundelin wrote: > I?m not sure of proper procedure here: > Anyway, > The bidding goes 1spade - pass - 1spade > The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. > Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for > opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? Yes. > If so it opens up for all sorts of clever slam tries starting at a > lower level than for all non-sinners. L27D insures that such "clever slam tries" cannot gain. If the pair reaches a successful slam, the TD must decide whether they "could well have" missed it on a normal auction after 1S-P-, with no infraction (i.e. no IB), and if he decides they could have he adjusts the score. The key point is that the TD evaluates "gained through the infraction" by comparing the actual result after 1S-P-1S- with the "no-infraction" result that would have been obtained after a normal 1S-P-, *not* against the "infraction-corrected" result that would have been obtained after a normal 1S-P-2S- ("L16D does not apply"). > I thought that the intention of the lawmakers would be to allow > some artificial game force support bid like Jacoby 2NT, but NOT a > nonforcing 2spades Indeed, that originally *was* the intention of the lawmakers, and was reflected in their initially disseminated version of L27, which they subsequently withdrew and replaced. That version, in effect, included L27B1(b) but not L27B1(a); it would have allowed 2NT (assuming the 1S opening only promised four spades, but that's a side- issue) but not (without penalty) 2S. Perhaps they decided that that made L27B too radically different from the 1997 version; in any case, they decided to preserve the old IB-replacement protocol (now L27B1 (a)), which allowed the 2S call without penalty, alongside the new one (now L27B1(b)). They are very different protocols, with different consequences when invoked, and a particular IB may be correctable without penalty under either, neither, or both. If both (a) and (b) allow the penalty-free correction, the IBer may choose which to invoke. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 9 16:55:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:55:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> On Jan 9, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: PO Sundelin >> I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, The bidding goes >> 1spade - pass - 1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. >> Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for >> opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? > > As long as responder did not make available his intention > why he bid 1 spades, it is AI for opener, YES > (see Law 27 B1a: "[...] Law 16D does not apply but > see D following"). The answer is yes, but Peter's caveat would not be correct in the ACBL, where not only the IB itself but also "his intention" are AI to opener. Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 9 17:06:53 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 11:06:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <040B689D-C4C8-4C85-8625-556C80E29B93@starpower.net> On Jan 9, 2009, at 4:56 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > Quote from the EBL seminar in May 2008 (Max Bavin): > > 2. Misbids and fielded misbids. > > Laws 27B1(a) and 27B1(b) work on the assumption that when the IB-er > selects a call which does not silence partner, his hand actually > conforms > to the newly selected bid. > > However, this will not necessarily be the case. For example, it > may make > perfect bridge sense to make a slight misbid in order to keep the > auction > open rather than gamble on a final contract by making a call which > silences partner. > > It may also make perfect bridge sense for partner to assume that > the IB-er > may be ?misbidding?, and to cater for (?field?) this possibility. > > All this is entirely legal ? it is general bridge knowledge covered > by Law > 16A1(d). > > This is why Law 27D exists. If the player does misbid, or if his > partner > attempts to cater for it (regardless of whether there has been an > actual > misbid or not), then Law 27D may apply. > > Note, however, that adjustments under Law 27D are entirely > different to > Law 16-type adjustments. A Law 27D adjustment is back to the probable > outcome of the board had the IB never occurred in the first place. Petrus is to be thanked for bringing this to our attention. It is clear and concise, addresses points that most would overlook, and is, IMHO, 100% correct. It's pity Mr. Bavin isn't a BLMLer, or his outstanding contribution to our understanding of L27B1 might have come to our intention some time ago and spared countless electrons since. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Jan 9 17:57:03 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:57:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Insufficient_bids?= In-Reply-To: <7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> From: Eric Landau > On Jan 9, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > > From: PO Sundelin > > > I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, ?The bidding goes > > > 1spade - pass - 1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. > > > Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for > > > opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? > > > > > > > As long as responder did not make available his intention > > why he bid 1 spades, it is AI for opener, YES > > (see Law 27 B1a: "[...] Law 16D does not apply but > > see D following"). > > The answer is yes, but Peter's caveat would not be correct in the > ACBL, where not only the IB itself but also "his intention" are AI to > opener. ?Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The > Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the > director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the > insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." Don't take it personal, but I'm not (really) interested in the ACBL interpretations when a Swedishman asks a question about the rules. In this case I take the EBL interpretation (which is the WBF interpretation). From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Jan 9 21:09:07 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:09:07 -0800 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> Message-ID: <7D128B2830D94F799CA07208E1BB8C38@MARVLAPTOP> Eric Landau wrote: > Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." "ACBL Guidelines?" In the absence of an interpretation by the ACBLLC, Mike Flader's column in the Bulletin merely reflects his opinion, although CTD Rick Beye surely approved it (and perhaps originated it). There is a fine line separating law creation from law interpretation, and another separating interpretation from implementation. The WBFLC creates and interprets, the ACBLLC only interprets (but should not contradict the WBFLC ), and the ACBL Tournament Department merely gives TDs guidelines for implementing the Laws and their official interpretations. Mike's column in some respects (e.g, the above quote) constitutes an interpretation of L27, not merely implementation (as he claims), and cannot rightly be characterized as an official ACBL position. That would have to come from either the ACBLLC or perhaps the ACBL BoD. If that is the case, I am unaware of it. Yes, *fait accompli*. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 9 22:18:23 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:18:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> <1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <39A3D3D5-F3DE-4CBA-93D5-F2F318749704@starpower.net> On Jan 9, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Eric Landau >> On Jan 9, 2009, at 4:29 AM, Peter Eidt wrote: >>> From: PO Sundelin style="margin:0px;"> >>>> I?m not sure of proper procedure here: Anyway, The bidding goes >>>> 1spade - pass - 1spade The insufficient bid is changed to 2spades. >>>> Is the fact that responder has an opening hand authorized info for >>>> opener, ie is it OK for him to bid game wirh a minimum? >>>> >>> >>> As long as responder did not make available his intention >>> why he bid 1 spades, it is AI for opener, YES >>> (see Law 27 B1a: "[...] Law 16D does not apply but >>> see D following"). >> >> The answer is yes, but Peter's caveat would not be correct in the >> ACBL, where not only the IB itself but also "his intention" are AI to >> opener. Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The >> Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the >> director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the >> insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." > > Don't take it personal, but I'm not (really) interested > in the ACBL interpretations when a Swedishman asks > a question about the rules. In this case I take the EBL > interpretation (which is the WBF interpretation). I won't take it personal, but this is an international forum with a wide distribution, and neither that Mr. Sundelin is a Swedishman, who plays in the EBL, and may therefore be interested only in a Euro- centric answer, nor that Peter knows this and has chosen to supply such an answer sans disclaimer, is at all obvious from the original above. I would suggest that in answering questions about the laws, it behooves us to be careful to distinguish those answers that are universally relevant from those that assume some local context only within which they are correct. Perhaps Peter, if he was aware of it, might have pointed out in his post that the he was specifically relying on an EBL interpretation. My intention was not to dispute anything that Peter said, merely to point out FTR that it would not be correct in the ACBL. That might be of interest to the ACBL players who read the thread, even if of no interest to Mr. Sundelin nor to Peter. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Jan 9 22:30:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 21:30:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> <1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott The answer is yes, but Peter's caveat would not be correct in the > ACBL, where not only the IB itself but also "his intention" are AI to > opener. Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The > Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the > director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the > insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." << +=+ I have consulted Max Bavin and he agrees with me that this is not the WBF position. We disagree with it. Of course, we have no knowledge of what the ACBL might be saying or how any decision is arrived at in that Zone. The earlier part of the response we agree. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Jan 9 22:55:43 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:55:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <7D128B2830D94F799CA07208E1BB8C38@MARVLAPTOP> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de> <7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net> <7D128B2830D94F799CA07208E1BB8C38@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <81EBB454-85B1-408E-AC4B-BF61D1A00F9C@starpower.net> On Jan 9, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The > Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the > director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the > insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." > > "ACBL Guidelines?" In the absence of an interpretation by the > ACBLLC, Mike Flader's column in the Bulletin merely reflects his > opinion, although CTD Rick Beye surely approved it (and perhaps > originated it). > > There is a fine line separating law creation from law > interpretation, and another separating interpretation from > implementation. The WBFLC creates and interprets, the ACBLLC only > interprets (but should not contradict the WBFLC ), and the ACBL > Tournament Department merely gives TDs guidelines for implementing > the Laws and their official interpretations. > > Mike's column in some respects (e.g, the above quote) constitutes an > interpretation of L27, not merely implementation (as he claims), and > cannot rightly be characterized as an official ACBL position. That > would have to come from either the ACBLLC or perhaps the ACBL BoD. > If that is the case, I am unaware of it. > > Yes, *fait accompli*. Wrong, wrong, wrong -- although, admittedly, the ACBL has at times wished, perhaps even pretended, that it were true. The Bridge Bulletin is published by the ACBL and is its general house organ. Mr. Flader is a full-time employee of the ACBL with a bylined column in The Bridge Bulletin. The subject of his columns are, specifically, interpretations of matters within the official purview of the ACBL, and he is a titled and credentialed expert on the subject who, when not writing his column, applies it in the course of his regular duties. There is absolutely no legal doubt not only that what he says in his column (absent a disclaimer) is presumed to be the official position of the ACBL, but, indeed, that he says it makes it so even if wasn't previously. As any judge in the U.S. would tell us, the ACBL has a legal obligation to prevent its own employees from misrepresenting its own official positions in its own official publications, and cannot hold others responsible for the consequences if it fails to do so. Legalities aside, even if Marv were right that "that would have to come from either the ACBLLC or... BoD", neither has produced anything addressing the subject, and Mr. Flader has, which leaves very little question as to whose guidelines they intend us to follow. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 10 02:06:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:06:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] Code of Practice 2008 References: Message-ID: <000a01c972bf$b0588100$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:05 AM Subject: [blml] Code of Practice 2008 > Hello all, > I have just noticed (a little late, I know) that the 2008 CoP does not > contain sections 2 and 3 (appeal examples and guidelines for rulings). > Is there an official position whether the old ones are still relevant or > cancelled? Or do we have to decide for ourselves on a case-to-case > basis? > Regards, > Petrus > +=+ There is a relevant statement at the top of page 4 of the 2008 revision of the CoP. When an Appendix to the 2007 laws is agreed it will replace the appeal examples and guidance for rulings. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 10 02:17:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:17:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott >> The answer is yes, but Peter's caveat would not be correct in the >> ACBL, where not only the IB itself but also "his intention" are AI to >> opener. Recently published ACBL guidelines ("Ruling the Game", The >> Bridge Bulletin, December 2008) state, "This law requires the >> director to render his opinion about the meaning of both the >> insufficient bid and the intended replacement bid." > << > +=+ I have consulted Max Bavin and he agrees with me that > this is not the WBF position. We disagree with it. Of course, > we have no knowledge of what the ACBL might be saying or > how any decision is arrived at in that Zone. > The earlier part of the response we agree. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +=+ Addendum, quoting Max Bavin: "If opener wants to deduce that partner was trying to open 1S, then he can do so. We can adjust the score if they arrive at some fantastic contract which they could not normally have bid (e.g. by starting a cue-bidding sequence at the 3-level and reaching a fantastic slam)."+=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Jan 10 12:58:27 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:58:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net> [+=+ Addendum, Grattan Endicott quoting Max Bavin] "If opener wants to deduce that partner was trying to open 1S, then he can do so. We can adjust the score if they arrive at some fantastic contract which they could not normally have bid (e.g. by starting a cue-bidding sequence at the 3-level and reaching a fantastic slam)."+=+ [Nigel] [A] Silly quibble: Presumably this means *then he may do so* rather than *can*. [B] Serious question: Normally opener's jump rebid, in a sequence like 1S-2S-4S, means that opener is strong. Must an ethical responder, with opening values, go on? Or, as Max implies, may the partnership, instead, adopt a new understanding, triggered by their earlier insufficient-bid infraction, to treat 2S as game-forcing, in this context? Presumably this conventions is permitted only in a jurisdiction that allows law-breakers to adopt conventional variations that depend on the option that they chose over their earlier infraction? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 10 16:21:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 15:21:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Insufficient bids > [+=+ Addendum, Grattan Endicott quoting Max Bavin] > "If opener wants to deduce that partner was trying to open 1S, then > he can do so. We can adjust the score if they arrive at some fantastic > contract which they could not normally have bid (e.g. by starting a > cue-bidding sequence at the 3-level and reaching a fantastic slam)."+=+ > > [Nigel] > [A] Silly quibble: Presumably this means *then he may do so* rather than > *can*. > [B] Serious question: Normally opener's jump rebid, in a sequence like > 1S-2S-4S, means that opener is strong. Must an ethical responder, with > opening values, go on? Or, as Max implies, may the partnership, instead, > adopt a new understanding, triggered by their earlier insufficient-bid > infraction, to treat 2S as game-forcing, in this context? Presumably > this conventions is permitted only in a jurisdiction that allows > law-breakers to adopt conventional variations that depend on the option > that they chose over their earlier infraction? > +=+ Serious answer. Since the opener is aware that he may make a stab at deducing what his partner thought he was doing, so is the partner aware that opener was entitled to do this*. So he can make allowances in his actions for what he thinks may be going on. The Director steps in with a score adjustment if the process enables them to reach a (favourable) contract that they were unlikely to reach had the insufficient bid not occurred. Note that score adjustment under Law 27D requires the Director to reinstate as nearly as he is able the probable outcome if the insufficient bid had not occurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ *Opponents are also equally aware of all this, making for an intriguing game of surmise and counter-conjecture. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Jan 10 19:55:19 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:55:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net> <009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002101c97354$fc38d580$15844c59@chello.pl> > +=+ Serious answer. Since the opener is aware that he may make > a stab at deducing what his partner thought he was doing, so is the > partner aware that opener was entitled to do this*. So he can make > allowances in his actions for what he thinks may be going on. The > Director steps in with a score adjustment if the process enables them > to reach a (favourable) contract that they were unlikely to reach had > the insufficient bid not occurred. > Note that score adjustment under Law 27D requires the > Director to reinstate as nearly as he is able the probable outcome if > the insufficient bid had not occurred. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > *Opponents are also equally aware of all this, making for an > intriguing game of surmise and counter-conjecture. Yeah, that's an expansion of what I have written, i.e. that it's general bridge knowledge. But... GBK is, we should remember, not common. I would be first to send a player of my level and knowledge about the laws to a tree if he tried to "lawyerize" on the basis of his unawareness. But there are thousands (milions?) of low-level players who simply don't understand such inferences. Bah, even knowledgable people and top players (like PO Sundelin) do not know how does exactly L27 work. Max Bavin's clarifications are surely great, but it was an extract from the EBL seminar, even if it is to be popularized among EBL TDs from different countries, it still won't probably reach (and won't be understood by) low-level TDs in NBOs and a great majority of players. Eric described the guidelines published in the Bridge Bulletin for the ACBL zone, but how many American club players (even worse, American club TDs) will read them? Back to GBK, most of the players will understand that 1S to 2S correction won't show a normal raise. Still there are some who may be confused by L27. Should the TD warn them about it if he judges that they are beginners? Going further, at least a significant group of those who understand 1S/2S correction implications may still be not aware of the implications of a consequent 4S bid. I'm certain that there are many mid-level players in this group, so it is not a beginner-only problem. Could anyone answer my following questions? - IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1S(2S)-4S. 4S bidder has a minimal, poor hand and the contract is unmakeable on the actual layout. a) the opponents are beginners, they make an opening lead and they are shocked seeing 12 HCP and 5 spades in dummy. They think that the 4S bidder has a decent hand and do not believe that the contract may be defeated, so they make some random (irrational) plays and 4S makes. Should the TD use L27D and adjust? b) the opponents are mid-level players, they are aware that there will be at least 12 HCP and 5 spades in dummy, they think that the 4S bidder has a decent hand, so they "know" that only something special will defeat the contract. They make a gambling lead (e.g. from Kx) and 4S makes. Should the TD use L27D and adjust? - IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1H(3H)-6S, 3H is explained according to system as 5+ hearts, 4 card spade support and 13-18 (more precise than 1H, allowed by L27B1(b)). 6S bidder naively thought that his partner's hand will be compliant with systemic requirements and has only moderate hand, 1H bidder has 13 HCP, spade doubleton, 6S is an awful contract, but not without chances. c) the opponents are beginners, they believe in 3H explanation and they make a safe trump opening lead (quite normal in such circumstances), resulting in losing a trump trick, 6S makes on favourable layouts (every other opening lead defeats it). Should the TD use L27 and adjust? d) the opponents are mid-level players (or even experts), they believe that 3H bidder might have misbid deliberately, they assume that his partner knew that and bid 6S with a really decent hand, having very strong trumps himself. So they lead a safe trump (losing a trump trick) and 6S makes on favourable layouts (every other opening lead defeats it). Should the TD use L27 and adjust? Thanks in advance. Regards Maciej From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Jan 10 20:47:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 19:47:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net><009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002101c97354$fc38d580$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <010c01c9735c$462560d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 6:55 PM Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids GBK is, we should remember, not common. I would be first to send a player of my level and knowledge about the laws to a tree if he tried to "lawyerize" on the basis of his unawareness. But there are thousands (millions?) of low-level players who simply don't understand such inferences. Bah, even knowledgeable people and top players (like PO Sundelin) do not know how does exactly L27 work. Max Bavin's clarifications are surely great, but it was an extract from the EBL seminar, even if it is to be popularized among EBL TDs from different countries, it still won't probably reach (and won't be understood by) low-level TDs in NBOs and a great majority of players. Eric described the guidelines published in the Bridge Bulletin for the ACBL zone, but how many American club players (even worse, American club TDs) will read them? > +=+ There are two things to say about this. One is that the GBK is available to all players. One reason that more skilled players have an advantage in the game is that they put more effort into finding out about such things. The lesser lights learn from experience when it happens, to them or in the group/club where they play. Secondly, there will be a session on the 2007 laws and the CoP in the Seminar for Officers of NBOs in Rome at the end of this month. We may be able to bring out one or two points of this kind for them to carry back to their TD trainers. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Jan 11 03:06:57 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 02:06:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net> <009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49695441.6080100@talktalk.net> [Grattan Endicott] +=+ Serious answer. Since the opener is aware that he may make a stab at deducing what his partner thought he was doing, so is the partner aware that opener was entitled to do this*. So he can make allowances in his actions for what he thinks may be going on. The Director steps in with a score adjustment if the process enables them to reach a (favourable) contract that they were unlikely to reach had the insufficient bid not occurred. Note that score adjustment under Law 27D requires the Director to reinstate as nearly as he is able the probable outcome if the insufficient bid had not occurred. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ *Opponents are also equally aware of all this, making for an intriguing game of surmise and counter-conjecture. [Nigel] Indeed, this is a fascinating and sophisticated new area of expertise. One of the myriad of new legal skills, introduced by the laws, that an aspiring player must master. Are there any players left, who, like me, find mundane old bidding and play problems, quite enough of a challenge? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 11 11:37:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 10:37:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net><009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49695441.6080100@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000801c973d8$96da9f50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott [Grattan] +=+ Under Law 27!(b) since the opener is aware that he may make a stab at deducing what his partner thought he was doing, so is the partner aware that opener was entitled to do this*. So he can make allowances in his actions for what he thinks may be going on. The Director steps in with a score adjustment if the process enables them to reach a (favourable) contract that they were unlikely to reach had the insufficient bid not occurred. Note that score adjustment under Law 27D requires the Director to reinstate as nearly as he is able the probable outcome if the insufficient bid had not occurred. < *Opponents are also equally aware of all this, making for an intriguing game of surmise and counter-conjecture. (N.B. There are reports that Zone 2 is giving different guidance from the above which is the WBF and EBL application.) > > [Guthrie] Indeed, this is a fascinating and sophisticated new area of expertise. one of the myriad of new legal skills, introduced by the laws, that an aspiring player must master. Are there any players left, who, like me, find mundane old bidding and play problems, quite enough of a challenge? > [Grattan] It would be a potential expectancy that I, on the eve of my 85th birthday, could feel like this too. But not so, I believe the game must develop and ton kooijman's initiative in favour of a more flexible Law 27 had and has my support. Of course it is taking a little time to bed down and there are some consequential situations that needed to be worked out, but come on, we are all alive and we should meet the challenge. I agree that the big challenge for the powers that be, Zones and NBOs particularly, is to feed guidance down to Directors in the lower reaches of the game. The correspondence on here will play a tiny part in that exercise and other channels are open, such as Anna Gudge's considerable email directory of Tournament Directors. I will see if she will pass this correspondence out via that channel. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Jan 11 12:26:40 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:26:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Sources of information for TDs Message-ID: <001c01c973df$7bf16a50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><1LLDg4-0StmgC0@fwd03.aul.t-online.de><7C07B3F4-9B01-420D-BD9F-E2BDAAFD06D1@starpower.net><1LLKfP-22BWSm0@fwd02.aul.t-online.de> <001d01c972a1$9911c6f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><002401c972c1$3449dbc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49688D63.3090501@talktalk.net><009301c97337$38267610$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49695441.6080100@talktalk.net> <000801c973d8$96da9f50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <496A18C9.9000805@talktalk.net> [Grattan] +=+ There are two things to say about this. One is that the GBK is available to all players. One reason that more skilled players have an advantage in the game is that they put more effort into finding out about such things. The lesser lights learn from experience when it happens, to them or in the group/club where they play. Secondly, there will be a session on the 2007 laws and the CoP in the Seminar for Officers of NBOs in Rome at the end of this month. We may be able to bring out one or two points of this kind for them to carry back to their TD trainers. [Nige1] When BLML discussed psyches, Herman and John defended their psyching propensities on the grounds that partner would often be able diagnose them from *general bridge knowledge" For example - psychic third-in-hand suit one-opener. - psychic 1N overcall, usually non-vulnerable, often with values for a weak two. - when partner opens and RHO doubles, psychic suit response to pick off opponents' major. Some BLMLers protested: this would be true for the first few psychs; but when such ploys become frequent, they may create an expectation; in any case, after detailed discussion on BLML and RGB, it is inevitable that they become special partnership understandings. Similarly, with the *options* that the laws provide for both offenders and non-offenders, after insufficient-bids and calls-out-of-turn. These create novel bidding contexts for new understandings. Experienced partnerships will regularly encounter these infractions from both sides of the table. Even without discussion, skilled players will develop implicit understandings. Inevitably, such matters will be discussed by players among themselves and on mailing lists, refining appropriate special understandings. It is important to note that different players interpret this kind of "GBK" in radically different ways. Hence we can expect a variety of different methods to develop to cater for the player's different options. An elementary example: Partner deals and your LHO opens 4H out of turn: After considering the options that the director explains, partner elects to double. RHO asks the double's meaning. Your system-card states that the double is *take-out*. Nevertheless, most BLMLers concluded that, in this unusual context, it was penalty -- based on GBK and inexorable bridge logic; a dissenting minority, however, interpreted the double as a (very pure) take-out double. Whatever their initial conclusion, a few minutes discussion would ensure that there was no ambiguity, on any *future* occasion; and would also clear up the meaning of other calls made after condoning (or not condoning) the bid out of turn. Similar considerations apply to both sides after an insufficient bid. In a jurisdiction where you may *not* agree methods that depend on the option chosen over an infraction, should the director allow a player to use such "GBK" and "Bridge Logic" to defend contingent understandings? Grattan Endicott seems to think so? But would this open a can of worms? For example, in the auction 1S-2S, where the 2S bidder corrected an initial insufficient bid of 1S? (FWIW, I still believe that all such options should be removed from the law-book) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 03:19:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:19:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <81EBB454-85B1-408E-AC4B-BF61D1A00F9C@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >Legalities aside, even if Marv were right that "that would have >to come from either the ACBLLC or... BoD", neither has produced >anything addressing the subject, ACBL Laws Commission minutes (published on ACBL official website) November 22, 2008: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION WESTIN HOTEL, BOSTON, MA NOVEMBER 22, 2008 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Chairperson Ron Gerard Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Robb Gordon Peter Boyd Eric Rodwell Chris Compton Matt Smith Allan Falk John Solodar ALSO PRESENT: Gary Blaiss, ACBL Executive Administrative Officer Mike Flader, ACBL Tournament Director Olin Hubert, ACBL Tournament Director Matt Koltnow, ACBL Tournament Director Al Levy, ACBL District 24 Director The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:00 AM. The minutes of the Las Vegas meeting were approved. The WBF Laws Committee minutes were discussed. This Commission is in agreement with the WBF Committee that tournament directors should be reasonably flexible/liberal in allowing a replacement call without immediate rectification (penalty) when that replacement call is more precise or similar in meaning to an insufficient bid (Law 27B1). The director should always ensure, however, that the insufficient bid was not material to the "offending" side receiving a favorable outcome (27D). The Commission concurs with the WBF Committee's interpretation of 12C1(b) in that a player's expertise be considered in determining whether that player's error was a serious one that contributed to that player's side receiving an unfavorable result. The application of Law 27B1 by tournament directors was discussed. It was acknowledged that some written guidance with examples might be helpful. However, it was considered that, prior to creating such a document, examples from use would be good. Therefore, Matt Smith was volunteered to speak with some tournament directors from other countries in which these Laws have been in use longer than in ACBL to get information. The Commission will ask the ACBL tournament department and senior staff to create some written guidance on this point by the Commission's Spring 2009 meeting for the Commission to review. Laws 12B1 and 12C1(e) - Definition of "Infraction" and "Irregularity" in adjudicating unauthorized information (UI) cases: relevance of transmittal of extraneous information versus acting on that information contrary to Law 16B1(a). The Chair, Chip Martel, will communicate with the Chair of the WBF Laws Committee to directly request its interpretation of this point. Richard Hills: This seems to be a reference to one of the more controversial issues of Law, whether a hesitation is in itself an irregularity, and consequently whether the new Lawbook permits so-called "Reveley Ruling"s. (That is, does the non-offending side "deserve" a result which would have happened _without_ an opponent's hesitation, or a result which would have happened _with_ that opponent's hesitation but _without_ the opponent's partner infracting Laws 16 and 73C?) ACBL Laws Commission minutes (published on ACBL official website) November 22, 2008: Adam Wildavsky presented a written form for committees and tournament directors to use in making unauthorized information rulings. The consensus was that use of such a form might improve rulings or improve a player's understanding of why a decision was made and, therefore, may decrease the number of such appeals. Al Levy presented the issue of Law 20F1 as it concerns asking questions about calls that were not made but were relevant and alternative or from which inferences may have been drawn where these are matters of partnership understanding. The specific example considered was an auction where North bid 4N and South responded 5D. The partnership agreement was that 4N asked for better minor (so 5D showed longer diamonds by agreement). However, South took 4N as blackwood, so the issue was whether EW were entitled to know how many aces (or key cards) 5D showed. A particular point was that North would know what South was showing if he misinterpreted 4N as blackwood (and thus even if better minor was the agreement, showing aces was obviously at least a possible meaning of the response). The clear majority view held that it was more important to be very liberal in allowing a question (e.g. what is a 5D response to Blackwood here) Supreme Court of California, 1962, ruling on vertical "stare decisis": "Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court." Richard Hills: The clear majority of the ACBL Laws Commission were infracting the WBF Constitution (to which the ACBL is a signatory) by overruling the explicit decision of the higher court of the WBF Laws Committee. It is not relevant that this particular WBF LC decision was apparently hastily written by a herd of hopeless water buffaloes; the sensible men of the ACBL LC lack the power to override the decision, and can merely suggest that the hopeless water buffaloes reverse their own decision at the next WBF LC meeting. ACBL Laws Commission minutes (published on ACBL official website) November 22, 2008: - especially when the answer will make understanding the information from the auction equally available to all players at the table. **Whether or not the subject of the question was a matter of partnership understanding is secondary to the matter of relevancy.** John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious!" Richard Hills: If your partnership has never used Blackwood (since you and partner have an understanding to use Gerber instead), then Law does not compel you to answer how many aces (or key cards) partner is showing in response to a Blackwood 4NT. Likewise, if your partnership plays Standard American Yellow Card, but partner alerts your SAYC 1C opening as Precision then bids 1NT, you are required to describe the SAYC meaning of 1NT, you are not required to have memorised Precision so that you can describe the Precision meaning of 1NT. ACBL Laws Commission minutes (published on ACBL official website) November 22, 2008: A minority view held that if the question did not relate to an actual agreement of the side to which the question was asked that it did not have to be answered. Allan Falk volunteered to create a proposal to be discussed by e-mail to reach a consensus. Until a consensus is reached, tournament directors should be reasonably liberal in allowing questions without permitting inquisitions "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition." and as the practically of time permits. The meeting was adjourned at noon. 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 Mon Jan 12 05:27:07 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:27:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 21:19:57 -0500, wrote: > > Al Levy presented the issue of Law 20F1 as it concerns asking > questions about calls that were not made but were relevant and > alternative or from which inferences may have been drawn where these > are matters of partnership understanding. The specific example > considered was an auction where North bid 4N and South responded 5D. > The partnership agreement was that 4N asked for better minor (so 5D > showed longer diamonds by agreement). However, South took 4N as > blackwood, so the issue was whether EW were entitled to know how many > aces (or key cards) 5D showed. A particular point was that North would > know what South was showing if he misinterpreted 4N as blackwood (and > thus even if better minor was the agreement, showing aces was > obviously at least a possible meaning of the response). > > The clear majority view held that it was more important to be very > liberal in allowing a question (e.g. what is a 5D response to > Blackwood here) > > Supreme Court of California, 1962, ruling on vertical "stare decisis": > > "Courts exercising inferior jurisdiction must accept the law declared > by courts of superior jurisdiction. It is not their function to > attempt to overrule decisions of a higher court." > > Richard Hills: > > The clear majority of the ACBL Laws Commission were infracting the WBF > Constitution (to which the ACBL is a signatory) by overruling the > explicit decision of the higher court of the WBF Laws Committee. It > is not relevant that this particular WBF LC decision was apparently > hastily written by a herd of hopeless water buffaloes; the sensible men > of the ACBL LC lack the power to override the decision, and can merely > suggest that the hopeless water buffaloes reverse their own decision at > the next WBF LC meeting. It is my impression that this particular section of the minutes impacts on the rights of players to know about the meanings of insufficient bids -- it essentially says you are not entitled to learn about the possible meaning of an insufficient bid. It is also my impression that everyone is going to ignore this aspect of the WBFLC ruling. More generally, the ACBL is supposed to act responsibly. And as near as I can tell, there is no one who always follows the laws. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 06:04:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:04:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: W.C. Sellar (1898-1951) and R.J. Yeatman (1898-1968), 1066 And All That: "Gladstone ... spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to the Irish Question; unfortunately whenever he was getting warm, the Irish secretly changed the Question." Maciej Bystry: >Could anyone answer my following questions? > >- IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1S(2S)-4S. 4S bidder has a minimal, poor >hand and the contract is unmakeable on the actual layout. > >a) the opponents are beginners, they make an opening lead and they are >shocked seeing 12 HCP and 5 spades in dummy. They think that the 4S >bidder has a decent hand and do not believe that the contract may be >defeated, so they make some random (irrational) plays and 4S makes. >Should the TD use L27D and adjust? Richard Hills: As TD I would rule: x) without the infraction the auction would almost certainly have been different, and y) the beginners' errors were related to the different auction, so Law 12C1(b) does not apply, thus z) I would adjust under Laws 27D and 12C1(c) to what would have happened had the insufficient bid not occurred. Maciej Bystry: >b) the opponents are mid-level players, they are aware that there will >be at least 12 HCP and 5 spades in dummy, they think that the 4S bidder >has a decent hand, so they "know" that only something special will >defeat the contract. They make a gambling lead (e.g. from Kx) and 4S >makes. Should the TD use L27D and adjust? Richard Hills: As TD I would rule: x) without the infraction the auction would almost certainly have been different, and y) the mid-level player's opening lead error was related to the different auction, so Law 12C1(b) does not apply, thus z) I would adjust under Laws 27D and 12C1(c) to what would have happened had the insufficient bid not occurred. Maciej Bystry: >- IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1H(3H)-6S, 3H is explained according to >system as 5+ hearts, 4 card spade support and 13-18 (more precise than >1H, allowed by L27B1(b)). 6S bidder naively thought that his partner's >hand will be compliant with systemic requirements and has only moderate >hand, 1H bidder has 13 HCP, spade doubleton, 6S is an awful contract, but >not without chances. > >c) the opponents are beginners, they believe in 3H explanation and they >make a safe trump opening lead (quite normal in such circumstances), >resulting in losing a trump trick, 6S makes on favourable layouts (every >other opening lead defeats it). Should the TD use L27 and adjust? Richard Hills: As TD I would rule: q) an adjustment to 4S making five, since not just the auction but also the contract would have been different had the insufficient bid not occurred -> Laws 27D and 12B1. Maciej Bystry: >d) the opponents are mid-level players (or even experts), they believe >that 3H bidder might have misbid deliberately, they assume that his >partner knew that and bid 6S with a really decent hand, having very >strong trumps himself. So they lead a safe trump (losing a trump trick) >and 6S makes on favourable layouts (every other opening lead defeats it). >Should the TD use L27 and adjust? > >Thanks in advance. Richard Hills: As TD I would rule: q) an adjustment to 4S making five, since not just the auction but also the contract would have been different had the insufficient bid not occurred -> Laws 27D and 12B1. 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 Jan 12 06:33:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:33:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: More generally, the ACBL is supposed to act responsibly. And as near as I can tell, there is no one who always follows the laws. * * * More generally, the ACBL LC examining and amending WBF LC decisions (instead of the vertical "stare decisis" requirement of vice versa) seems to me to be partly cultural, in the tradition of American exceptionalism or Manifest Destiny. On the other hand, James K. Polk is thought by consensus of American historians to have been one of the great Presidents. In part, that was due to Polk staring down Manifest Destiny extremists in his own party (the "54 40 or fight" faction) with Polk instead successfully achieving a compromise with the British on the 49th parallel of latitude for the division of the Oregon Territory between the United States and Canada. 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 Jan 12 06:39:37 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 16:39:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200901120539.n0C5dda1007080@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:04 PM 12/01/2009, you wrote: >W.C. Sellar (1898-1951) and R.J. Yeatman (1898-1968), 1066 And All That: > >"Gladstone ... spent his declining years trying to guess the answer to >the Irish Question; unfortunately whenever he was getting warm, the >Irish secretly changed the Question." > >Maciej Bystry: > > >Could anyone answer my following questions? > > > >- IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1S(2S)-4S. 4S bidder has a minimal, poor > >hand and the contract is unmakeable on the actual layout. > > > >a) the opponents are beginners, they make an opening lead and they are > >shocked seeing 12 HCP and 5 spades in dummy. They think that the 4S > >bidder has a decent hand and do not believe that the contract may be > >defeated, so they make some random (irrational) plays and 4S makes. > >Should the TD use L27D and adjust? > >Richard Hills: > >As TD I would rule: > >x) without the infraction the auction would almost certainly have been > different, and >y) the beginners' errors were related to the different auction, so Law > 12C1(b) does not apply, thus >z) I would adjust under Laws 27D and 12C1(c) to what would have happened > had the insufficient bid not occurred. > >Maciej Bystry: > > >b) the opponents are mid-level players, they are aware that there will > >be at least 12 HCP and 5 spades in dummy, they think that the 4S bidder > >has a decent hand, so they "know" that only something special will > >defeat the contract. They make a gambling lead (e.g. from Kx) and 4S > >makes. Should the TD use L27D and adjust? > >Richard Hills: > >As TD I would rule: > >x) without the infraction the auction would almost certainly have been > different, and >y) the mid-level player's opening lead error was related to the different > auction, so Law 12C1(b) does not apply, thus >z) I would adjust under Laws 27D and 12C1(c) to what would have happened > had the insufficient bid not occurred. > >Maciej Bystry: > > >- IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1H(3H)-6S, 3H is explained according to > >system as 5+ hearts, 4 card spade support and 13-18 (more precise than > >1H, allowed by L27B1(b)). 6S bidder naively thought that his partner's > >hand will be compliant with systemic requirements and has only moderate > >hand, 1H bidder has 13 HCP, spade doubleton, 6S is an awful contract, but > >not without chances. > > > >c) the opponents are beginners, they believe in 3H explanation and they > >make a safe trump opening lead (quite normal in such circumstances), > >resulting in losing a trump trick, 6S makes on favourable layouts (every > >other opening lead defeats it). Should the TD use L27 and adjust? > >Richard Hills: > >As TD I would rule: > >q) an adjustment to 4S making five, since not just the auction but also > the contract would have been different had the insufficient bid not > occurred -> Laws 27D and 12B1. > >Maciej Bystry: > > >d) the opponents are mid-level players (or even experts), they believe > >that 3H bidder might have misbid deliberately, they assume that his > >partner knew that and bid 6S with a really decent hand, having very > >strong trumps himself. So they lead a safe trump (losing a trump trick) > >and 6S makes on favourable layouts (every other opening lead defeats it). > >Should the TD use L27 and adjust? > > > >Thanks in advance. > >Richard Hills: > >As TD I would rule: > >q) an adjustment to 4S making five, since not just the auction but also > the contract would have been different had the insufficient bid not > occurred -> Laws 27D and 12B1. We eagerly await the promised Appendix with official worked out examples. I have always refused to enquire about the IBer's intent, instead giving a few general examples of what bids are acceptable. I now see from the above examples, the problem with this approach. If I allow the change to 2S, I must say either "I am allowing the change under L27B 1(a) (which is always allowed), or I am allowing the change under L27B1 (b)", in which case I will have to let everybody know, and they will all know that the 2S is then specifically not just 5-9 points with some spades. Confused Sydney From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Jan 12 08:28:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:28:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Insufficient questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200901120539.n0C5dda1007080@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Ed Murrow (1908-1965), on the Vietnam War: "Anyone who isn't confused doesn't really understand the situation." >>- IMPs, the auction goes 1S-1S(2S) Confused (Sydney): >We eagerly await the promised Appendix with official worked out examples. > >I have always refused to enquire about the IBer's intent, Confunded (Canberra): Both sections of Law 27B1 contain "in the Director's opinion", not "in the insufficient bidder's opinion" so (unless otherwise mandated by the local Regulating Authority) it seems to me that the Director need not ask the insufficient bidder about the insufficient bidder's intent. Instead (unless otherwise mandated by the local Regulating Authority) it seems to me that the formation of the Director's Opinion could be based merely on the auction so far, the insufficient bidder's methods, and the cards in the insufficient bidder's hand. Confused (Sydney): >instead giving a few general examples of what bids are acceptable. I >now see from the above examples, the problem with this approach. If I >allow the change to 2S, I must say either "I am allowing the change under >L27B 1(a) (which is always allowed), Confunded (Canberra): Almost always. Both the insufficient bid of 1S and the replacement bid of 2S must be "incontrovertibly not artificial". This would apply to almost all pairs. But no doubt there might be a super-scientist pair who employ transfer fit- showing non-jumps to 1S. In that case 2S would be "artificial", since it shows both spades and clubs, but however also be "more precise", since it shows both spades and clubs, not the less precise spades only. Ergo, permitted under Law 27B1(b) despite -- to uninitiated outside observers, such as the opponents -- apparently a Law 27B1(a) ruling. (Except that the opponents would immediately become initiated when the replacement bid of 2S was alerted.) Confused (Sydney): >or I am allowing the change under L27B1 (b), in which case I will have to >let everybody know, and they will all know that the 2S is then >specifically not just 5-9 points with some spades. Confunded (Canberra): Given that the consequences for both sides are identical after application of either Law 27B1(a) or Law 27B1(b), could the Director simply announce to the table, "I am ruling under Law 27B1 (your guess whether sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) is relevant) that the particular 2S replacement bid chosen by the insufficient bidder permits her partner to call and play without further rectification, and if I later rule that the non-offending side is damaged a Law 27D adjusted score will be awarded." ??? Law 81C2 requires the Director to "advise the players of their rights and responsibilities", but does that necessarily imply that the Director should remind the non-offending side about the methods the offending side play by being over-specific about sub-clauses of the insufficient bid ruling ??? 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 Mon Jan 12 08:33:11 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:33:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Insufficient minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:33:38 -0500, wrote: > More generally, the ACBL is supposed to act responsibly. And as near as I > can tell, there is no one who always follows the laws. > > * * * > > More generally, the ACBL LC examining and amending WBF LC decisions > (instead of the vertical "stare decisis" requirement of vice versa) seems > to me to be partly cultural, in the tradition of American exceptionalism > or Manifest Destiny. I am not sure it is just this. The Boston Tea Party is considered to be the noble effort of patriots, not a criminal act. We have a national holiday for Martin Luther King Jr, who I assume broke at least some laws and went to jail at least once. Abraham Lincoln once conceded that by the law his client should not receieve the money he was owed, then argued that he should get it anyway because that was the right thing to do. He won his case. Juries give verdicts and pretty much can do what they want. It is a national law that the speed limit on the expressways in my area is 55 MPH. The state cannot change that, AFAIK, and the local government cannot change it. But everyone can and does ignore it. A friend of mine worked for a State Supreme Court Justice and reported that he decided what he wanted to rule and then asked her to find reasons to support it. There also seems to be more money in bridge in the U.S. than elsewhere. The club where I work runs about 9 games a week. The Saturday game, smallest of the day games, had 15 tables. That worked out to be at least 50 people paying $9 each. I am guessing we also have older players than world-wide; most players are retired and very few players are under 55. > > On the other hand, James K. Polk is thought by consensus of American > historians to have been one of the great Presidents. In part, that was > due to Polk staring down Manifest Destiny extremists in his own party > (the "54 40 or fight" faction) with Polk instead successfully achieving a > compromise with the British on the 49th parallel of latitude for the > division of the Oregon Territory between the United States and Canada. I am guessing you are being serious. This is all news to me; I doubt that Polk gets a sentence in your average American History book. try http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jp11.html for a politically correct view of Polk. From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Sat Jan 10 11:33:57 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:33:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids In-Reply-To: <49672252.5060205@skynet.be> References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <49672252.5060205@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 9 Jan 2009, at 10:09, Herman De Wael wrote: > PO Sundelin wrote: > >> I thought that the intention of the lawmakers would be to allow some >> artificial game force support bid like Jacoby 2NT, but NOT a >> nonforcing >> 2spades >> PO Sundelin >> > > Well, the intention of the lawmakers also was to make the laws easier, > so they allowed the natural 2S as well. If I may quote from the same Max Bavin paper that everyone else is using: "?Would all hands which might make the new call (the replacement bid) have also made the old call (the insufficient bid)?? If ?yes? then it?s OK under 27B1(b); if ?no?, then it?s not." Unless the IBer and partner have quite unusual agreements, a replacement of an intended 1S opening bid (if indeed that's what it was) with a Jacoby 2NT call would not be allowed under this guidance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090110/31367115/attachment.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Jan 12 16:04:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:04:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Insufficient bids References: <389343.74680.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com><49672252.5060205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01c974c7$631c1af0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Salvor Hardin (8 F.E. - ), first mayor of Terminus: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Robert Frick: [snip] >It is a national law that the speed limit on the expressways >in my area is 55 MPH. The state cannot change that, AFAIK, >and the local government cannot change it. But everyone can >and does ignore it. Richard Hills: Everyone everywhere??? It is a common blml error (made by parochial Norwegians, parochial Australians, parochial Stevensonians and parochial Americans) to assume not only that their local conditions are the best possible conditions, but also the _only_ possible conditions. Australians take road safety much more seriously than Americans do. Indeed, in 1970 the Government of Tasmania was the first in the world to create a post of Minister for Road Safety. So while a large number of Americans refuse to use seat-belts (apparently many believe that seat-belts are an infringement of their constitutional rights), in Australia the use of seat-belts is universal with recalcitrants facing hefty fines. Robert Frick: >A friend of mine worked for a State Supreme Court Justice >and reported that he decided what he wanted to rule and then >asked her to find reasons to support it. [snip] Richard Hills: There is a disputed allegation that that was the approach the late and great Edgar Kaplan took when chairing Appeals Committees. Edgar allegedly said words to the effect of, "If you do not like what a Law says, find another Law." It is beyond dispute that in times past Edgar deliberately chose to draft some Laws in an ambiguous way, thus allowing the different cultures of different sponsoring organisations to each do their own thing. The current Drafting Committee took the more sensible approach of trying to reduce any ambiguities to a minimum, but inserting explicit options for Regulating Authorities into the 2007 Lawbook. 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 Jan 13 00:49:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:49:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Long on Ethics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Salvor Hardin (8 F.E. - ), first mayor of Terminus: "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Grattan Endicott, 8th October 2002: >+=+ You may think provocative the text of the paper I have just >presented to the EBL Seminar for Presidents and Officers. On the day >it might have had one or more thoughts added (this is the original >text). > > EUROPEAN BRIDGE LEAGUE > > SEMINAR > For > Presidents and Officers of NBOs. > > Torino, 3 to 5 October, 2002. >____________________________________________________________________ > >Questions for discussion groups moderated by Grattan Endicott. > > 'ETHICS' > >1. Are ethics an outmoded concept in a game environment? > >The first papers distributed for this discussion are quotations of >the standards of earlier years. With them there are copies of some >recent EBL statements on ethics. > >Do we see a difference? >Should we hope to maintain the standards of earlier years? >Could we hope to develop standards to fresh levels? > >Bridge in the highly social atmosphere of the home. Many a child >learns that father and mother happily and innocently communicate as >much by the tempo and mannerisms that accompany their game as >they do by the calls in the auction and the play of the cards. > >2. The young player's first experience of a bridge club. > >Even if they do not bring with them what they have learnt about the >game at their mother's knee, young players entering a bridge club >for the first time will frequently encounter a socially relaxed >game. There is often (but not always) a tolerance of ethical >standards that will not stand scrutiny if they move upwards to the >regional, national and international levels of bridge. > >3. What should be the role of the NBO before, during, and >immediately after, the transition from social player to competition >level? > >Does the NBO have a duty to do anything at all? >Does the NBO have an interest to help the players to understand the >ethical requirements of the game? >What does your NBO do about it? >Do you issue free pamphlets and/or posters to clubs on ethics in >bridge? >Do you include the subject in teaching programmes? - as a >mainstream subject? >Do you include it in seminars for club tournament directors? > >4. What are the chief problems? > >Tempo > About half (at least) of the appeals in tournaments are to do > with action by the partner of a player who breaks tempo > (allegedly) before calling. > > We must not overlook the less frequent, but at times highly > significant, occasions when a player is slow to play a card to a > trick. > >Mannerisms > Players are human beings and have mannerisms in the way they do > things. The laws require us not to take advantage of what we can > 'read' in partner's actions. > >The unthinking remark > With a friendly approach to the game and a little good humour at > the table, people sometimes get 'caught out' by saying something > that can be misread and immediately regretting it. > >Disclosure > Law and Regulation normally requires that our methods be 'fully > disclosed'. > > The pressure for full disclosure should increase at each higher > level of the game. It is suggested that a high standard of > ethics calls for a high level of consideration for opponents. In > turn this means care in giving a full and fair explanation of > any understanding that opponents may not readily anticipate and > understand. > > Consider this proposition: "" On the first occasion that > something happens you may draw an inference; maybe the second > time it is still a matter of evidence and reasoning. The third > time it happens you are on solid ground and it is a matter of > partnership agreement. Further, if you say to partner 'so in > this situation I cannot have four Spades' a conversation that > began with an inference has transmuted it into an agreement."" > Think about advanced partnerships in your NBO - those with well > developed system files. Do they measure up to these standards of > disclosure when asked to explain a call? Do they mention relevant > 'agreed' inferences? > >Misinformation > As with disclosure, there is an issue under this heading if it is > considered a matter of bridge ethics to be considerate of > opponents. The higher we go in bridge, is there not a > corresponding increase in our responsibility for preparing > ourselves for tournaments? > > How ethical can we consider ourselves once we rise to the levels > of national tournaments, or of regional tournaments in larger > countries, if we are unable to give our opponents an accurate > account of our system agreements and our special understandings? > Is it acceptable if we go to such major tournaments inadequately > prepared? - using methods that we have not fully grasped? Richard Hills, 10th October 2002: >>There is currently no obligation to have *comprehensive* agreed >>methods. Correctly informing the opponents that you have no >>explicit or implicit agreement about a particular call is not an >>infraction under the current Laws. Richard Hills, 13th January 2009: Indeed, I dearly wish that all of my opponents were inadequately prepared, using methods that they had not fully grasped. It is very true that if the opponents mangle the Ghestem convention we may lose 10 imps by missing our cold spade game (due to the opponents playing in a misbid spade partscore). But most of the time a Ghestem mangle will lead to the boot being on the other foot, with ethical manglers going -1400 at the table, and unethical manglers going -1400 in the Appeals Committee room. Grattan Endicott, 8th October 2002: >5. How do we see these problems varied when screens are in use? > >Tempo > During the auction it is the return of the tray that matters. > The screenmate of a player who hesitates has no reason to call > the Director if players on the other side of the screen have > noticed no untoward delay. > >Misinformation > Players in doubt are expected to alert. Do we then support the > WBF view that an alert one side of the screen but not the other > does not necessarily imply an infraction? Players should not make > assumptions about reasons for an alert? > >6. Suspicion > >Another problem is that some players are more gifted than others. >When we see a highly successful partnership are we too ready to >suspect them of cheating? Do we think too easily that they must have >some way of communicating, some way of 'finding out', that is denied >to mortals? > >When we see the introduction of screens, bidding boxes, symmetrical >playing cards, do we feel nostalgia for the 'innocence' of the past? >Or do we share the feeling that "nostalgia isn't what it used to >be"? > >Is it our belief that such measures are essential safeguards for the >probity of the game, the honesty of its players? Or do we see in >them a response to the perceptions of those envious of success? > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Moderator's footnote: > >The question reveals the man. But it is not what I think that is >important. >The need is for the group to consider, and for each individual to >find his/her own answers to, questions that ought to be asked, at >least, in every NBO. >================================================ >================================================ > >~ G ~ +=+ 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 Jan 13 07:21:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:21:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Long on Ethics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Salvor Hardin (8 F.E. - ), first mayor of Terminus: "It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety." Grattan Endicott, 8th October 2002: [big snip] >When we see the introduction of screens, bidding boxes, symmetrical >playing cards, do we feel nostalgia for the 'innocence' of the past? >Or do we share the feeling that "nostalgia isn't what it used to >be"? Richard Hills: Grattan is quoting the title of the memoirs of the famous Simone Signoret (1921-1985). She was the first French actor to win the Academy Award (for her leading role in the classic 1959 melodrama, Room at the Top). Grattan Endicott, 8th October 2002: >Is it our belief that such measures are essential safeguards for the >probity of the game, the honesty of its players? Or do we see in >them a response to the perceptions of those envious of success? Richard Hills: A false dichotomy. I answer Yes to both questions. Yes, it is useful to have sensible Laws and sensible regulations in place which deter or prevent cheating without inconveniencing the majority of honest players. For example, the existence of Law 43A2(c) played a part in a recent high-profile cheating case -- if this Law did not exist, the non-offending screenmate of dummy would have been less likely to notice the consequent key infraction. On the other hand, an American West Coast expert wrote a book of his collected best deals in the "over-your-shoulder" style, thus giving some flavour of Tournament Organizer practices in his milieu. In one event the expert was flabbergasted to hear the Tournament Organizer proudly announce that a "Suspicion Box" was to be prominently on display. Then paranoid bunnies who knew in their bones that all of the experts "must" be cheating them could anonymously write their slanders on slips of paper and insert them into the Suspicion Box. The American West Coast expert then overheard two Little Old Ladies discussing another expert visiting the water-cooler between rounds. "He must be trying to cop a board," asserted one LOL. "I'm writing this up for the Suspicion Box." Law 74C8: "The following are examples of violations of procedure: leaving the table needlessly before the round is called." 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 Tue Jan 13 08:41:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:41:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Long on Ethics [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001701c97552$6a671b80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > +=+ Adding some serious responsibilities to the tedium of office! :-) +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Jan 13 20:40:59 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:40:59 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: A Christmas Story for people having a bad day Message-ID: <000801c97632$4031aed0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott