From jrhind at therock.bm Sun Feb 1 00:02:23 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:02:23 -0700 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: The defender will get both tricks. Jack On 1/31/09 11:53 AM, "Jeff Easterson" wrote: > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > > In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > both of the last tricks. > > Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, > or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he > apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > > Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions > of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Feb 1 01:01:00 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 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 Sun Feb 1 01:01:00 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 01:01:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for January 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 39 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 39 darkbystry (at) wp.pl 25 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 24 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 22 ehaa (at) starpower.net 17 john (at) asimere.com 14 svenpran (at) online.no 11 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 9 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 7 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 7 petrus (at) stift-kremsmuenster.at 6 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 6 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 4 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 3 torsten.astrand (at) telia.com 3 swillner (at) nhcc.net 3 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 3 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 2 picatou (at) picatou.com 2 jrhind (at) therock.bm 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 2 gampas (at) aol.com 2 adam (at) tameware.com 2 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 2 Gampas (at) aol.com 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 1 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 1 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 1 geller (at) nifty.com 1 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 1 cibor (at) poczta.fm 1 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 1 blml (at) dybdal.dk 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 RCraigH (at) aol.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 1 11:54:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:54:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> I disagree with both answers so far. It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which are held till last". I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the two that they could get. It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the rule? Would they object to that rule? Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > > In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > both of the last tricks. > > Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, > or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he > apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > > Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions > of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 1 13:17:21 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:17:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer has failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards he shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational"). If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" to cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot imagine any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high. Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 1. februar 2009 11:54 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] a question > > I disagree with both answers so far. > It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. > I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which > are held till last". > I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without > objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the > two that they could get. > It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. > Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider > "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the > rule? Would they object to that rule? > > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. > > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > > makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > > two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > > > > In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > > both of the last tricks. > > > > Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > > according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > > that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > > out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, > > or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he > > apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > > first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > > > > Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > > tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions > > of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From axman22 at hotmail.com Sun Feb 1 14:15:42 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 07:15:42 -0600 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Herman De Wael" Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 04:54 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [blml] a question > I disagree with both answers so far. > It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. > I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which > are held till last". There ought not be such a rule [as in one that can conflict with law]. The ruling needs to be in accordance with law. regards roger pewick > I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without > objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the > two that they could get. > It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. > Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider > "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the > rule? Would they object to that rule? > > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. >> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >> >> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >> both of the last tricks. >> >> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, >> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he >> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >> >> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions >> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 1 15:41:56 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:41:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> Message-ID: <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer has > failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards he > shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of > whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational"). > > If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" to > cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot imagine > any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high. > Except that in the view of many players, trumps are not "high", but "alone". And as such, they are not equal to the other suits. I urge you to ask this of a player, not well versed in the text of the law, and ask him how many tricks he would settle for, as defender. I am quite confident that most players would agree with just the one trick. We've talked about this case before, and it's impossible to settle by using just the lawbook. What is irrational play in this situation? Impossible to say. Yet we need some form of consensus. I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. We wrote that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are kept till last." I think that this should constitute a precedent and be treated as "case law". But of course as long as people continue to disagree, this thing will keep coming up. Herman. > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: 1. februar 2009 11:54 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >> >> I disagree with both answers so far. >> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. >> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which >> are held till last". >> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without >> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the >> two that they could get. >> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. >> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider >> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the >> rule? Would they object to that rule? >> >> Herman. >> >> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. >>> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >>> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >>> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >>> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >>> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >>> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >>> >>> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >>> both of the last tricks. >>> >>> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >>> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >>> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >>> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, >>> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he >>> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >>> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >>> >>> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >>> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions >>> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 1 16:40:33 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 16:40:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many (both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs. There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that means that he will begin with his last trump. Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made, they all consider such a ruling a joke. Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to "careless", I see no problem with that? And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference? Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: 1. februar 2009 15:42 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] a question > > Sven Pran wrote: > > If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer has > > failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards he > > shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of > > whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational"). > > > > If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" to > > cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot imagine > > any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high. > > > > Except that in the view of many players, trumps are not "high", but > "alone". And as such, they are not equal to the other suits. > I urge you to ask this of a player, not well versed in the text of the > law, and ask him how many tricks he would settle for, as defender. > I am quite confident that most players would agree with just the one trick. > > We've talked about this case before, and it's impossible to settle by > using just the lawbook. What is irrational play in this situation? > Impossible to say. Yet we need some form of consensus. > > I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. We wrote > that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are kept till > last." I think that this should constitute a precedent and be treated as > "case law". But of course as long as people continue to disagree, this > thing will keep coming up. > > Herman. > > > > Sven > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sent: 1. februar 2009 11:54 > >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [blml] a question > >> > >> I disagree with both answers so far. > >> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. > >> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which > >> are held till last". > >> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without > >> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the > >> two that they could get. > >> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. > >> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider > >> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the > >> rule? Would they object to that rule? > >> > >> Herman. > >> > >> Jeff Easterson wrote: > >>> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. > >>> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > >>> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > >>> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > >>> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > >>> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > >>> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > >>> > >>> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > >>> both of the last tricks. > >>> > >>> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > >>> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > >>> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > >>> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, > >>> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he > >>> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > >>> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > >>> > >>> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > >>> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions > >>> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> blml mailing list > >>> blml at amsterdamned.org > >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blml mailing list > >> blml at amsterdamned.org > >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 1 16:47:43 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 16:47:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4985C41F.3030004@skynet.be> Roger Pewick wrote: > > -------------------------------------------------- > From: "Herman De Wael" > Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 04:54 > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Subject: Re: [blml] a question > >> I disagree with both answers so far. >> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. >> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which >> are held till last". > > There ought not be such a rule [as in one that can conflict with law]. The > ruling needs to be in accordance with law. > And what does the law say? "Irrational". And what does irrational mean? Yes, Roger, we do need a "rule". Unless you find it acceptable that such cases are treated differently by different directors. I propose that the WBF should settle this, as people seem not to be able to agree that EBL AC decisions can be treated as precedent. In fact, why do we write up appeals, if not as to act as case law? Herman. > regards > roger pewick > >> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without >> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the >> two that they could get. >> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. >> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider >> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the >> rule? Would they object to that rule? >> >> Herman. >> >> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. >>> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >>> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >>> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >>> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >>> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >>> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >>> >>> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >>> both of the last tricks. >>> >>> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >>> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >>> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >>> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, >>> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he >>> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >>> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >>> >>> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >>> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions >>> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 1 18:04:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:04:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> Message-ID: <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many > (both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where > declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with > the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one > defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs. > > There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any > trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play > his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that > means that he will begin with his last trump. > > Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made, > they all consider such a ruling a joke. > Indeed, the original ruling was wrong in a totally different aspect. > Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to > "careless", I see no problem with that? > > And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining > trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference? > If you don't understand the difference between a high spade and the last trump you have not played much bridge. Most bridge players draw trumps until there are no more out, and then start on the other suits, leaving the trumps to get back in when something strange happens. When they have all tricks but are uncertain, they will cash all winners in side suits, leaving the trumps till last. To act any differently seems irrational to me. Why it would be different if one "knows" all side suits are winners and all trumps are out is beyond me. Of course there are reasons to play trumps first - squeezes, communication, checking for outstanding trumps, whatever. But barring any of these reasons, no player I know will regard trumps as "just another suit". As long as our opinions continue to differ to this degree, there is only one solution: the WBF LC, or the WBF AC, or the EBL LC, or the EBL AC (in that order of precedence) should write down what they believe the correct solution is. And after that, Sven, and Herman, should abide by that decision. Of course the NBF or the BBF can intervene as well, but I fail to see why this should be national matter. FWIW, the EBL AC has issued such a declaration, in the appeal you know quite well. Why can you not agree that this is a precedent? Why can you not consider this matter closed? Herman. NB: The appeal in question is Tenerife appeal 41, well known in Norway. http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: 1. februar 2009 15:42 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer > has >>> failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards > he >>> shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of >>> whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational"). >>> >>> If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" > to >>> cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot > imagine >>> any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high. >>> >> Except that in the view of many players, trumps are not "high", but >> "alone". And as such, they are not equal to the other suits. >> I urge you to ask this of a player, not well versed in the text of the >> law, and ask him how many tricks he would settle for, as defender. >> I am quite confident that most players would agree with just the one > trick. >> We've talked about this case before, and it's impossible to settle by >> using just the lawbook. What is irrational play in this situation? >> Impossible to say. Yet we need some form of consensus. >> >> I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. We wrote >> that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are kept till >> last." I think that this should constitute a precedent and be treated as >> "case law". But of course as long as people continue to disagree, this >> thing will keep coming up. >> >> Herman. >> >> >>> Sven >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>> Sent: 1. februar 2009 11:54 >>>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >>>> >>>> I disagree with both answers so far. >>>> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. >>>> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which >>>> are held till last". >>>> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without >>>> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of > the >>>> two that they could get. >>>> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. >>>> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider >>>> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the >>>> rule? Would they object to that rule? >>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> >>>> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>>> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following > case. >>>>> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >>>>> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >>>>> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two > cards >>>>> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". > He >>>>> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the > last >>>>> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >>>>> both of the last tricks. >>>>> >>>>> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >>>>> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >>>>> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >>>>> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not > claim, >>>>> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as > he >>>>> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >>>>> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >>>>> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the > opinions >>>>> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blml mailing list >>>>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>>>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blml mailing list >>>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Feb 1 18:04:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:04:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> Message-ID: <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> Sorry, wrong Tenerife in my previous link: http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/2001%20Appeals%20Book.pdf Sven Pran wrote: > I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many > (both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where > declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with > the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one > defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs. > > There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any > trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play > his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that > means that he will begin with his last trump. > > Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made, > they all consider such a ruling a joke. > > Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to > "careless", I see no problem with that? > > And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining > trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference? > > Sven > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >> Sent: 1. februar 2009 15:42 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >> >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer > has >>> failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards > he >>> shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of >>> whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational"). >>> >>> If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" > to >>> cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot > imagine >>> any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high. >>> >> Except that in the view of many players, trumps are not "high", but >> "alone". And as such, they are not equal to the other suits. >> I urge you to ask this of a player, not well versed in the text of the >> law, and ask him how many tricks he would settle for, as defender. >> I am quite confident that most players would agree with just the one > trick. >> We've talked about this case before, and it's impossible to settle by >> using just the lawbook. What is irrational play in this situation? >> Impossible to say. Yet we need some form of consensus. >> >> I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. We wrote >> that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are kept till >> last." I think that this should constitute a precedent and be treated as >> "case law". But of course as long as people continue to disagree, this >> thing will keep coming up. >> >> Herman. >> >> >>> Sven >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>>> Sent: 1. februar 2009 11:54 >>>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >>>> >>>> I disagree with both answers so far. >>>> It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. >>>> I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which >>>> are held till last". >>>> I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without >>>> objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of > the >>>> two that they could get. >>>> It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. >>>> Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider >>>> "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the >>>> rule? Would they object to that rule? >>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> >>>> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>>> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following > case. >>>>> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >>>>> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >>>>> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two > cards >>>>> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". > He >>>>> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the > last >>>>> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >>>>> both of the last tricks. >>>>> >>>>> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >>>>> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >>>>> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >>>>> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not > claim, >>>>> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as > he >>>>> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >>>>> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >>>>> >>>>> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >>>>> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the > opinions >>>>> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> blml mailing list >>>>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>>>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> blml mailing list >>>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 jrhind at therock.bm Sun Feb 1 18:04:19 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 13:04:19 -0400 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: I have always applied the reasoning that since declarer thinks there are no outstanding trumps he can play the cards randomly. So I have him randomly play the trump first so that it never works to his/her advantage. I believe this to be far more consistent than sometimes allowing declarer to play the other card and benefit. Jack On 2/1/09 6:54 AM, "Herman De Wael" wrote: > I disagree with both answers so far. > It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. > I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which > are held till last". > I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without > objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the > two that they could get. > It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. > Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider > "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the > rule? Would they object to that rule? > > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. >> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >> >> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >> both of the last tricks. >> >> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, >> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he >> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >> >> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions >> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Feb 1 18:37:52 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:37:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> > Sven Pran wrote: > > If we discuss what the law "should be" I propose: Whenever the claimer has > > failed to specify the exact sequence in which he wants to play his cards he > > shall play them in a sequence as decided by his opponents (regardless of > > whether or not such sequence can be considered "irrational"). > > > > If we discuss what the law is then we have to rule if it is "irrational" to > > cash high trumps before cashing high cards in side suit(s). I cannot imagine > > any particular sequence to be "irrational" when all cards are high. > > > > Except that in the view of many players, trumps are not "high", but > "alone". And as such, they are not equal to the other suits. > I urge you to ask this of a player, not well versed in the text of the > law, and ask him how many tricks he would settle for, as defender. > I am quite confident that most players would agree with just the one trick. I'm sure that most of the players would settle for two and wouldn't have any doubts. You seem to live in a place where silly claiming is popular. All right, but please, do not try to impose your habits on the other players. Claiming *should not* be a substitute for a real play if there are still decisions to be made. I have nothing against conditional claiming (e.g. just made or +1 depending on a finesse), but if a player claims because he doesn't want to check whether the given suit(s) split(s), he should get the worst of it. The same goes if the player is confused and forgets important features of the deal. Your view that "trumps are not high" is not supported by any proof. If all the remaining cards are high (trumps or not trumps) there can be no difference in the order of play. To decide what would the players do in such situations we would have to observe some beginner's play (they usually do not claim) and see whether trumps are really played last or not. My observations tell me that it is quite random, but I have too small sample to draw conclusive findings. > We've talked about this case before, and it's impossible to settle by > using just the lawbook. What is irrational play in this situation? > Impossible to say. Yet we need some form of consensus. "Irrational" is a very strong word. It is something like playing suits from the bottom, not overruffing, playing Queen from AQ if RHO plays a King, not making 100% finesse etc etc. Stretch the interpretation of "irrational" as much as you wish - cashing sure winners in a random way *is not* irrational, because all the cashing sequences produce the same result. And we do not allow the mistaken claimer to make any safe plays. > I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. We wrote > that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which are kept till > last." I think that this should constitute a precedent and be treated as > "case law". But of course as long as people continue to disagree, this > thing will keep coming up. Yes, there was an infamous EBL case, decided horribly in my opinion. To treat this as a "case law" would be absurd. Maybe we should treat "Oh Shit" case as a "case law" too? Or other awful decisions? Sorry, ACs are sometimes wrong, they consist of people and people are not robots. It is easy to understand such decisions - players wanting tricks because of erroneous claims are frequently seen as bridge lawyers (in negative sense), seeking something for nothing. Try to read ACBL casebook commentators, you'll see what I mean. I'm not surprised that some AC members could reason like that: "It's probable that this claimer would make his contract, yes, he could play his 10 of spades, but he'd rarely do so. His opponents want to get their top by lawyering, -2 is not a normal bridge result etc. Better to give the contract to the claimer and achieve something normal, now only to find a justification...". So they found it. Against the meaning of irrational. If the lawmakers want to decide that trumps are played last, ok. But it has to be plainly written in the laws or in the regulations (if the laws allow for it). As far as I know some federations issued such guidelines. Fine. Without the guidelines we are left only with the letter of laws and cashing the remaining winners in a random way is certainly not irrational. I'm personally opposed to such regulations because for me claiming should not be used to avoid the mistakes that the players could make. I'm not as harsh as David Burn, I don't want the faulty claimers to lose all the tricks, I don't want to impose really idiotic plays on them, but if they are lazy and do not bother to make correct statements (or their mind wanders) they should get the worst of it. This is the only way to teach them to claim correctly. > Herman. Regards Maciej From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sun Feb 1 19:19:44 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 18:19:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> The trouble with trying to make an "equitable" regulation is that you'd have to go into far too much detail. Of course, if you have three aces left including the trump ace, it would border on "irrational" as most players understand the term not to play the trump ace first, just in case. If you have the trump deuce and two aces, it would equally border on "irrational" to play the trump first. One could imagine this kind of regulation: if you have three aces left and a trump lower than the eight, "rational" play is to cash the aces (if you have forgotten a trump, the odds are that it is higher than the seven); whereas if your trump is the nine or better, "rational" play is to lead the trump first. If you have the eight, we'll award a 50-50 adjusted score... Ridiculous? Of course it's ridiculous. But it's the kind of mess you get into if you try to adjudicate claims based on what would have happened at the table, and the mess is made worse if you create a regulation to help you adjudicate on the basis of what the player would have done had he played the hand out. The Laws are no better: "any doubtful points are resolved against the claimer" - but what is a "doubtful point"? Instead, create this regulation (or even this Law): a claimer states the number of tricks he proposes to win, and the order in which his remaining cards will be played to win those tricks. Any cards not encompassed in his statement are deemed to be played in the legal order most advantageous to the opponents. This isn't completely foolproof, and could lead to an absurdity of this kind: a player with two trumps (spades) and two red aces tables his cards with no statement other than "the rest are mine". Well, an opponent could win a trump and lead a club, on which per the regulation above claimer would have to discard one of his aces instead of ruffing. The process could be repeated, so that the claimer makes one trick instead of three, a result that even I would consider inequitable. But you could add to the end of the regulation above a rider to the effect that claimer is not deemed to make any irrational plays, and then you would be dealing with "irrational" in the true sense of the word. David Burn London, England From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 1 20:49:16 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 20:49:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > I don't need to ask any Norwegian player again; I have already asked many > > (both skilled and unskilled in the laws of bridge) on the EBL case where > > declarer had the ten of Spades (trump) and the two red Aces claiming with > > the apparent belief that all his cards were high, only to discover that one > > defender held the Jack of Spades and Ace/King of Clubs. > > > > There hasn't been a single player among those I asked who would give any > > trick at all to declarer! They all say that "of course" declarer must play > > his cards in the sequence that is most favorable to the opponents, and that > > means that he will begin with his last trump. > > > > Nobody believe me when I tell them of the actual ruling originally made, > > they all consider such a ruling a joke. > > > > Indeed, the original ruling was wrong in a totally different aspect. > > > Why is it so difficult to apply the meaning of "irrational" as contrary to > > "careless", I see no problem with that? > > > > And is it at all relevant whether the term used for the only remaining > > trumps is "high" or "alone"? What is the difference? > > > > If you don't understand the difference between a high spade and the last > trump you have not played much bridge. Most bridge players draw trumps > until there are no more out, and then start on the other suits, leaving > the trumps to get back in when something strange happens. > When they have all tricks but are uncertain, they will cash all winners > in side suits, leaving the trumps till last. To act any differently > seems irrational to me. Why it would be different if one "knows" all > side suits are winners and all trumps are out is beyond me. You are correct that i haven't been playing much bridge. I only began learning bridge around 1947, my family has been devoted to bridge since the early 1930'ies and bridge was always played when at least four of us were together. It wasn't until the mid 1960s that I became engaged in organized bridge and received my director's training and license as late as in 1980. When a player claims I expect him to be certain he has the tricks he claims and that no conditional play is necessary unless he explicitly calls attention to that fact. I find firm foundation for that expectation in the laws and have absolutely no sympathy for the player "who is uncertain" and still claims. A player who claims all remaining tricks with no particular explanation is effectively saying that he has only high cards left and that there are no outstanding trumps. Therefore no line of play (except possibly playing a running suit bottom up) is "irrational", not even "careless", and if he has miscalculated in any way he will just have to take his medicine. The Director's duty is to protect the interests of his opponents, he is not there to find the best line of play for the claimer. > > Of course there are reasons to play trumps first - squeezes, > communication, checking for outstanding trumps, whatever. But barring > any of these reasons, no player I know will regard trumps as "just > another suit". I hope you will agree that once a claim has been made such considerations are completely irrelevant? A claim shall be adjudicated from the statement made by the claimer as prescribed in Law 70. It is particularly important that the Director must never act as an assistant to the claimer on matters the claimer may have overlooked. The trump suit enjoys no privilege to the effect of being played before or after other suits when no statement to such fact has been made by the claimer. > > As long as our opinions continue to differ to this degree, there is only > one solution: the WBF LC, or the WBF AC, or the EBL LC, or the EBL AC > (in that order of precedence) should write down what they believe the > correct solution is. And after that, Sven, and Herman, should abide by > that decision. Of course the NBF or the BBF can intervene as well, but I > fail to see why this should be national matter. > > FWIW, the EBL AC has issued such a declaration, in the appeal you know > quite well. Why can you not agree that this is a precedent? Why can you > not consider this matter closed? I have the absolute impression of being fully compliant with the instructions from NBF > Herman. > > NB: The appeal in question is Tenerife appeal 41, well known in Norway. > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf I may have gotten something wrong, but I couldn't recognize any of the appeals in that document as the one in question? Sven From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 1 21:02:39 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 21:02:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sorry, wrong Tenerife in my previous link: > http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/2001%20Appeals%20Book.pdf That was better. But to my knowledge that EBL decision is not recognized as creating any prejudice in Norway. I should expect any Norwegian AC to having ruled one trump trick and two diamond tricks for the defense. I believe you stated that the original AC ruling was incorrect for a different reason? May I ask why? Sven From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sun Feb 1 22:34:43 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 13:34:43 -0800 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: Jeff Easterson wrote: > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following > case. > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and > a > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other > hands > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two > cards > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps > out". He > makes no further statement. Looking for the right law, I see that L70D1 assumes there was an original clarification statement. There was none, so I go to L70E, Unstated Line of Play. . Oh look, L70D3 says a claimer can play on, gaining information from an opponent's reaction, and the subsequent play is considered evidence of the accuracy of the claim. I must remember that. L70E only covers finesses and drops, it's no help with this case. Back to L70D1, whose words should read "...in *an* original clarification statement..." Leading a trump thought to be high is normal enough, so two tricks to the opposition. I ignore the footnote, whose meaning is impenetrable. What play would not be careless or inferior for the class of player involved? I had hoped we would get rid of the "class of player" criterion, treating everyone in an event equally. Has no one noticed that "irrational" has been deleted from the footnote in the 2007 Laws? And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But there was no "original clarification statement." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 1 23:49:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:49:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 70D3 (was "a question") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: H.R. Haldeman (1929-1993), on the Watergate affair: "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it is awfully hard to get it back in." Marvin French asserted: >...Oh look, L70D3 says a claimer can play on, gaining information >from an opponent's reaction, and the subsequent play is considered >evidence of the accuracy of the claim. I must remember that... Law 70D3: "In accordance with Law 68D play should have ceased, but if any play has occurred after the claim this may provide evidence to be deemed part of the clarification of the claim. The Director may accept it as evidence of the players' probable plays subsequent to the claim and/or of the accuracy of the claim." Law 68D - Play Ceases: "After any claim or concession, play ceases (but see Law 70D3). If the claim or concession is agreed, Law 69 applies; if it is doubted by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately and Law 70 applies. No action may be taken pending the Director's arrival." Richard Hills: Ergo, to "play on, gaining information from an opponent's reaction" is an infraction of Law 68D, a variation of the illegal Alcatraz Coup, so the Director can adjust the score via Law 12B. Rather, I believe the purpose of Law 70D3 is aimed elsewhere -> If a hypothetical English declarer accurately claims on a double squeeze, and the hypothetical Belgian defenders request that play continues, and the hypothetical English declarer acquiesces in that request, then both sides have infracted Law 68D. But if the hypothetical English declarer then carelessly mistimes his double squeeze to fail in his contract, now Law 70D3 means that that hypothetical English declarer is no longer automatically awarded the contract, contrary to the required ruling of "contract made" under the 1997 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 svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 1 23:49:48 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 23:49:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following > > case. > > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and > > a > > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other > > hands > > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two > > cards > > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps > > out". He > > makes no further statement. > > Looking for the right law, I see that L70D1 assumes there was an > original clarification statement. There was none, so I go to L70E, > Unstated Line of Play. > . > Oh look, L70D3 says a claimer can play on, gaining information from > an opponent's reaction, and the subsequent play is considered > evidence of the accuracy of the claim. I must remember that. Yes, L70D3 says that if the claimer plays on after his claim his play is evidence of his intended line of play whether or not he actually made a claim statement. L70D3 also implies that if opponents participate in such continued play they may forfeit their rights in connection with the claim, in particular if an insufficient claim statement was made. > > L70E only covers finesses and drops, it's no help with this case. L70E covers any situation where a line of play depends on who is holding certain card(s). > Back to L70D1, whose words should read "...in *an* original > clarification statement..." Nitpicking? What is wrong with *the* original clarification statement (even if there was none)? > > Leading a trump thought to be high is normal enough, so two tricks > to the opposition. I ignore the footnote, whose meaning is > impenetrable. What play would not be careless or inferior for the > class of player involved? I had hoped we would get rid of the > "class of player" criterion, treating everyone in an event equally. > Has no one noticed that "irrational" has been deleted from the > footnote in the 2007 Laws? > > And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite > Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal > lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good > if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But > there was no "original clarification statement." Here, although you most likely are more familiar with the English (excuse me: American) language than I am I have a distinct impression that you are reading the laws like a certain figure is said to read the Holy Bible. I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and every" rather than "at least one". And I am convinced that this is the intention with Law 70E1, an understanding that I consider consistent with a similar clause in Law 70D1 Regards Sven. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 2 02:20:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:20:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] UI instructions for players [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4984A906.7050603@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Revd Robert Easton, Fat, Bald and Worthless, page 127: "On 8 October 1735 Yung-chen the Immortal died." Steve Willner asked: >Anybody know of a good writeup telling average players what they are >supposed to do at the table when they have UI from partner? A player >asked me, and I realized I don't know of anything suitable. It >should be more than "Just ignore the UI," (which we all know isn't >even correct) Richard Hills quibbles: Yes, all or almost all active posters to blml know that one must carefully note (not ignore) UI received, so that one can then select a non-suggested logical alternative. But outside the blml Ivory Tower it is not just average players who incorrectly believe that one must Just Say No to UI, but also top-class experts and national Directors. Steve Willner asked: >but not an exposition of TD procedures. I'd think a page or so of >text could give the basic rules and a couple of helpful examples. >Does anything like that exist? EBU Orange Book (guide for average players on the Laws and EBU rules), Clause 3E5: Perhaps an example would help. A player opens 1C which is not alerted, and the next player, before passing, asks the meaning of the 1C, or even worse says "Is that natural?". If 3NT is reached, and the questioner's partner leads a Club from two or three small cards the questioner must expect that the TD will not allow the result to stand, but will adjust it. What reason has this player to ask? The questioner knows it is a natural bid because it was not alerted. Experience shows the questioner often happens to have several Clubs. Players sometimes say "I always ask whether I intend to bid or not". This is not recommended. 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 Feb 2 03:57:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:57:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: Suppose declarer claims with xxxxxx opposite AQJxxx of trumps, a 12-card fit. I think we would want to give declarer that "normal" play is to drop the king, even if it is offside. In other words, accept the claim. However, if declarer leads towards the AQJ, sees RHO discard, and concedes a trick, I think we don't want to give back the conceded trick to declarer. But the laws seem treat the above two situations as exactly the same. The unstated principle for me is that claimer or conceder should not be given credit for making a better play than the quality of the faulty claim or concession. Another example is declarer who claimed the rest, not counting that he was one winner short, then got credit for running a squeeze, as that was normal play for a player of his caliber. (Or that's how I remember it.) Bob > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following >> case. >> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and >> a >> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other >> hands >> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two >> cards >> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps >> out". He >> makes no further statement. > > Looking for the right law, I see that L70D1 assumes there was an > original clarification statement. There was none, so I go to L70E, > Unstated Line of Play. > . > Oh look, L70D3 says a claimer can play on, gaining information from > an opponent's reaction, and the subsequent play is considered > evidence of the accuracy of the claim. I must remember that. > > L70E only covers finesses and drops, it's no help with this case. > Back to L70D1, whose words should read "...in *an* original > clarification statement..." > > Leading a trump thought to be high is normal enough, so two tricks > to the opposition. I ignore the footnote, whose meaning is > impenetrable. What play would not be careless or inferior for the > class of player involved? I had hoped we would get rid of the > "class of player" criterion, treating everyone in an event equally. > Has no one noticed that "irrational" has been deleted from the > footnote in the 2007 Laws? > > And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite > Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal > lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good > if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But > there was no "original clarification statement." > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 2 05:54:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:54:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Dylan Thomas (1914-1953): The hand that signed the paper felled a city; Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath, Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country; These five kings did a king to death. In the "a question" thread, Herman De Wael asserted: >...I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. >We wrote that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which >are kept till last." I think that this should constitute a >precedent and be treated as "case law"... Richard Hills: There are two reasons why this 2001 EBL Appeal does not constitute a precedent. _Imprimis_ is that Herman De Wael is incorrectly paraphrasing the scribe of that 2001 Appeals Committee. The scribe actually wrote: "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed 'normal'. It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." Richard Hills: No doubt the 2001 scribe should sue the 2009 Herman De Wael for gross misrepresentation. :-) If the scribe does sue, would that count as "Herman bashing"? :-) Because of the caveat "in a case like this" it is clear that the Appeals Committee was ruling that this case was a special exception to the rule that cards believed to be high are played in any order. So the Appeals Committee was _not_ deciding a new general rule and precedent. (Since Grattan Endicott was a member of the Appeals Committee, I am not surprised that it gave such a carefully nuanced explanation of its ruling.) _Secundus_ is "expressio unius est exclusion alterius". The Moving Finger has written a new sovereign 2007 Lawbook, with fell changes to the claim Laws. "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" translates as "the express mention of one thing excludes all others". Wikipedia clarifies: "Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as 'includes' or 'such as.'" Richard Hills: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to the list of eight items in Law 90B, since the Law 90B prologue specifically states that the list is merely illustrative "(but the offences are not limited to these)". However... There is a list of one item in the new 2007 Law 70E2: "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'from the top down') in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law)." Richard Hills: Note that the following hypothetical sentence was excluded from any express mention in the new 2007 Law 70E2: "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'trumps last') in which the Director shall deem different suits played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any other requirement of this Law)." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 2 07:13:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:13:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4985C41F.3030004@skynet.be> Message-ID: James H. Boren (1925- ), American bureaucrat: Guidelines for bureaucrats: (1) When in charge, ponder. (2) When in trouble, delegate. (3) When in doubt, mumble. Herman De Wael asked a question: >In fact, why do we write up appeals, if not as to act as >case law? Richard Hills ponders: Now that Rich Colker has been involuntarily retired from compiling and editing ACBL Appeals Casebooks, in my opinion the best value for Appeals Casebooks are the annual EBU Appeals Casebooks edited by David Stevenson. http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/appeals.htm For these, in my opinion, the value does not come from the actual Appeals Committee decisions (which are often fully or partially doubtful, i.e. the decisions of funky gibbons), but rather from the forensic dissections of those decisions by the EBU Law and Ethics Committee and the expert panellists. 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 Feb 2 07:32:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:32:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn asserted: >...If you have the trump deuce and two aces, it would >equally border on "irrational" to play the trump first... Richard Hills quibbles: If one claims with the statement, "all three of my cards are certain winners", then it borders on the irrational to argue that that claim statement actually means "I am playing my two aces first and my deuce last because one of my three cards is an uncertain winner". Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 09:17:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:17:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be> <001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> Message-ID: <4986AC2A.9050807@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > A player who claims all remaining tricks with no particular explanation is > effectively saying that he has only high cards left and that there are no > outstanding trumps. Therefore no line of play (except possibly playing a > running suit bottom up) is "irrational", not even "careless", and if he has > miscalculated in any way he will just have to take his medicine. The > Director's duty is to protect the interests of his opponents, he is not > there to find the best line of play for the claimer. > Look Sven, you know the laws are not like that. The law does _not_ say that the opponents get the benefit of _any_ line, only of non-irrational ones. You yourself give one exception - running a suit bottom-up. I go just one exception further in what I call irrational. You cannot win this argument on the law text alone. I find it irrational to play the trump from A-A-A-trump 2, you apparently don't find this irrational, but there is nothing in the laws to tell us who is right here. So stop trying to convince me that yours is the only possible correct ruling, and stop criticizing me for believing that the line should be drawn somewhat further. And please join me in an effort to have the WBF make a statement about this case. >> Of course there are reasons to play trumps first - squeezes, >> communication, checking for outstanding trumps, whatever. But barring >> any of these reasons, no player I know will regard trumps as "just >> another suit". > > I hope you will agree that once a claim has been made such considerations > are completely irrelevant? Of course they are - I was merely pre-empting the argument that sometimes trumps are drawn past their exhaustion. > A claim shall be adjudicated from the statement > made by the claimer as prescribed in Law 70. It is particularly important > that the Director must never act as an assistant to the claimer on matters > the claimer may have overlooked. The trump suit enjoys no privilege to the > effect of being played before or after other suits when no statement to such > fact has been made by the claimer. > >> As long as our opinions continue to differ to this degree, there is only >> one solution: the WBF LC, or the WBF AC, or the EBL LC, or the EBL AC >> (in that order of precedence) should write down what they believe the >> correct solution is. And after that, Sven, and Herman, should abide by >> that decision. Of course the NBF or the BBF can intervene as well, but I >> fail to see why this should be national matter. >> >> FWIW, the EBL AC has issued such a declaration, in the appeal you know >> quite well. Why can you not agree that this is a precedent? Why can you >> not consider this matter closed? > > I have the absolute impression of being fully compliant with the > instructions from NBF > I have the absolute impression of being compliant with any instructions the BBF would issue, were they to issue any instructions. Do you really believe it is a good thing for Norwegians and Belgians to be playing under different law interpretations - in this area? (There are other areas, notably alerting, where national differences are unavoidable and indeed necessary) >> Herman. >> >> NB: The appeal in question is Tenerife appeal 41, well known in Norway. >> http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2005.pdf > > I may have gotten something wrong, but I couldn't recognize any of the > appeals in that document as the one in question? > I meanwhile changed the link to the correct Tenerife - it was 2001, not 2005. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 09:18:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:18:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> Message-ID: <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sorry, wrong Tenerife in my previous link: >> http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/2001%20Appeals%20Book.pdf > > That was better. > > But to my knowledge that EBL decision is not recognized as creating any > prejudice in Norway. I should expect any Norwegian AC to having ruled one > trump trick and two diamond tricks for the defense. > > I believe you stated that the original AC ruling was incorrect for a > different reason? May I ask why? > No, the original Director ruling was wrong - by giving a weighted score. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 09:35:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:35:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> Hello Richard, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Dylan Thomas (1914-1953): > > The hand that signed the paper felled a city; > Five sovereign fingers taxed the breath, > Doubled the globe of dead and halved a country; > These five kings did a king to death. > > In the "a question" thread, Herman De Wael asserted: > >> ...I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. >> We wrote that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which >> are kept till last." I think that this should constitute a >> precedent and be treated as "case law"... > > Richard Hills: > > There are two reasons why this 2001 EBL Appeal does not constitute > a precedent. > > _Imprimis_ is that Herman De Wael is incorrectly paraphrasing the > scribe of that 2001 Appeals Committee. The scribe actually wrote: > > "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows > he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed 'normal'. > It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, > this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." > Yes, both Hermans remember writing this. > Richard Hills: > > No doubt the 2001 scribe should sue the 2009 Herman De Wael for > gross misrepresentation. :-) If the scribe does sue, would that > count as "Herman bashing"? :-) > > Because of the caveat "in a case like this" it is clear that the > Appeals Committee was ruling that this case was a special exception > to the rule that cards believed to be high are played in any order. > So the Appeals Committee was _not_ deciding a new general rule and > precedent. (Since Grattan Endicott was a member of the Appeals > Committee, I am not surprised that it gave such a carefully nuanced > explanation of its ruling.) > OK, so tell me what "in a case like this" means. The AC stated a general principle "suits are cashed in random order". The AC also decided "trumps are cashed last". They said "in a case like this". Tell me what that means. Is the case that Jeff described a "case like this"? I believe it is. So I believe that if the AC decision is a pertinent to the question asked. First of Richard's objection dealt with, I think. > _Secundus_ is "expressio unius est exclusion alterius". The Moving > Finger has written a new sovereign 2007 Lawbook, with fell changes > to the claim Laws. > A principle with which I agree. The laws have indeed changed, and so any precedent that dealt with a law that has since changed is no longer valid. However, I do not believe that the principle applies to every single law in the lawbook. Those laws that have not changed keep their precedents intact. Now, I don't see any change in the claim law per se. It still refers to irrational lines, and we still need to decide whether the play of the trump is irrational. > "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" translates as "the express > mention of one thing excludes all others". Wikipedia clarifies: > A principle I also agree with. But express mention does not include things that are mentions as examples. > "Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. > However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not > exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as 'includes' > or 'such as.'" > Indeed. > Richard Hills: > > Expressio unius est exclusio alterius does not apply to the list of > eight items in Law 90B, since the Law 90B prologue specifically > states that the list is merely illustrative "(but the offences are > not limited to these)". > > However... > > There is a list of one item in the new 2007 Law 70E2: > > "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'from the top > down') in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was > not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any > other requirement of this Law)." > And I think e.g. is a word just like "such as". So this list, even only one item long, should not mean that other things are excluded. > Richard Hills: > > Note that the following hypothetical sentence was excluded from any > express mention in the new 2007 Law 70E2: > > "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'trumps last') > in which the Director shall deem different suits played if this was > not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any > other requirement of this Law)." > OK, that was not mentioned. But neither was there mention that the RA does not have the right to specify such an order. If the NBF decides that the order which the EBL has issued (trumps last) does not conform to their wishes, they may change that issuance. But no-one has so far given such an order. So what is your point, Richard? Do you agree that the EBL has the right to say "we believe it is irrational to cash trumps before last"? Do you agree that they did say so? Do you agree that this saying, if it has the power of precedent, has kept such power after 2007? All of which does not help you, of course, in sunny Oz-land, sadly not affiliated to the EBL. Herman. > > 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 > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 11:57:45 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:57:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > I believe you stated that the original AC ruling was incorrect for a > > different reason? May I ask why? > > > > No, the original Director ruling was wrong - by giving a weighted score. Why was this wrong? >From Bermuda 2000 WBFLC minutes: 4. The committee noted the invitation of the Code of Practice Group for the committee to add to Law 12C3 an option allowing regulating authorities to extend its powers to the Chief Director of a Tournament. The committee was reluctant to make the change at this time, preferring to leave it until the next major revision. However, it was agreed that in the meantime the committee would raise no challenge to the manner in which the WBF had made the arrangement in the current championships, and given this approach in WBF events the committee does not see reason to object when Zonal or national organizations give the Chief Director this power on an experimental basis. I believe having seen somewhere that EBL had opened the possibility for CTD to apply weighted scores? I may remember wrong. But the AC initial statement cannot possibly be correct when they say: "There is no assigned adjusted score to be given". With play terminated as a consequence of the claim and the claim being contested the Director must rule what score shall apply on the board, i.e. he must "give an assigned adjusted score"? Now to the appeal itself, I have studied the appeal more in detail and found a possible reason behind the ruling. However, this particular reason is not mentioned in the script and I have no idea if the AC ever thought along this line: The claimer has stated that he would draw the one outstanding trump. When he plays his trump 10 he will see the 8 (or 9) drop from RHO. This will change his picture of the board from all his cards being high to the possibility that there could still be an outstanding trump which in case would be the highest trump left in the play. Based on this development in the play it will now be irrational to play the last trump before cashing the high cards in the other suits. If this was the real reasoning by the AC I could just possibly accept it, but why is this reasoning then not mentioned in the script? Aside from that I still consider the AC ruling incorrect, I still honestly believe that the Norwegian law committee consider it incorrect and my impression is that most (if not all) Norwegian bridge players consider it incorrect. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 14:36:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:36:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> Message-ID: <4986F6EF.7070806@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael >>> I believe you stated that the original AC ruling was incorrect for a >>> different reason? May I ask why? >>> >> No, the original Director ruling was wrong - by giving a weighted score. > > Why was this wrong? > Because the claim laws state that the worst of all possible results must be given - this is not a L12 AS which can be varied by the AC, and, by the extension you cite below, by the CTD. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 14:41:40 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:41:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> Message-ID: <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > But the AC initial statement cannot possibly be correct when they say: > "There is no assigned adjusted score to be given". > With play terminated as a consequence of the claim and the claim being > contested the Director must rule what score shall apply on the board, i.e. > he must "give an assigned adjusted score"? > No Sven, a claim is a separate article of Law, which does not refer to L12, Artificial Scores. Calling a claim adjustment an artificial score does not make it one in the legal sense of the word, and so weighted scores are not available. > Now to the appeal itself, I have studied the appeal more in detail and found > a possible reason behind the ruling. However, this particular reason is not > mentioned in the script and I have no idea if the AC ever thought along this > line: > > The claimer has stated that he would draw the one outstanding trump. When he > plays his trump 10 he will see the 8 (or 9) drop from RHO. This will change > his picture of the board from all his cards being high to the possibility > that there could still be an outstanding trump which in case would be the > highest trump left in the play. > > Based on this development in the play it will now be irrational to play the > last trump before cashing the high cards in the other suits. > > If this was the real reasoning by the AC I could just possibly accept it, > but why is this reasoning then not mentioned in the script? > This was not the reasoning of the AC. So of course it was not mentioned in the script. The reasoning was that when a declarer is faced with what he believes to be winners in more than one suit, and a set of trumps (that he believes are the only ones left) then it is considered rational for him to chose any of the side suits to cash first (top-down), but that is it not considered rational for him to cash the trump suit as if this were just any other suit. > Aside from that I still consider the AC ruling incorrect, I still honestly > believe that the Norwegian law committee consider it incorrect and my > impression is that most (if not all) Norwegian bridge players consider it > incorrect. > And of course if the whole of Norway consider it incorrect, then surely it must be incorrect. ;) > Sven > From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 2 14:43:49 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:43:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> Message-ID: <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> > The trouble with trying to make an "equitable" regulation is that you'd have > to go into far too much detail. Of course, if you have three aces left > including the trump ace, it would border on "irrational" as most players > understand the term not to play the trump ace first, just in case. If you > have the trump deuce and two aces, it would equally border on "irrational" > to play the trump first. > > One could imagine this kind of regulation: if you have three aces left and a > trump lower than the eight, "rational" play is to cash the aces (if you have > forgotten a trump, the odds are that it is higher than the seven); whereas > if your trump is the nine or better, "rational" play is to lead the trump > first. If you have the eight, we'll award a 50-50 adjusted score... > > Ridiculous? Of course it's ridiculous. But it's the kind of mess you get > into if you try to adjudicate claims based on what would have happened at > the table, and the mess is made worse if you create a regulation to help you > adjudicate on the basis of what the player would have done had he played the > hand out. The Laws are no better: "any doubtful points are resolved against > the claimer" - but what is a "doubtful point"? > > Instead, create this regulation (or even this Law): a claimer states the > number of tricks he proposes to win, and the order in which his remaining > cards will be played to win those tricks. Any cards not encompassed in his > statement are deemed to be played in the legal order most advantageous to > the opponents. > > This isn't completely foolproof, and could lead to an absurdity of this > kind: a player with two trumps (spades) and two red aces tables his cards > with no statement other than "the rest are mine". Well, an opponent could > win a trump and lead a club, on which per the regulation above claimer would > have to discard one of his aces instead of ruffing. The process could be > repeated, so that the claimer makes one trick instead of three, a result > that even I would consider inequitable. But you could add to the end of the > regulation above a rider to the effect that claimer is not deemed to make > any irrational plays, and then you would be dealing with "irrational" in the > true sense of the word. By writing "I'm not as harsh as David Burn" I meant I did not support forcing the player to make such idiotic plays as you described - discarding Aces instead of ruffing. "Irrational" rider would solve it, although it should be understood as really irrational, possibly with definition or with clarifying examples (to not let doves like Herman to interpret it in order to help "poor" faulty claimers). I agree with the rest of your contribution. > David Burn > London, England Regards Maciej From jrhind at therock.bm Mon Feb 2 15:08:01 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:08:01 -0400 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: I am in complete agreement with you Jeff. Jack On 1/31/09 2:53 PM, "Jeff Easterson" wrote: > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > > In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > both of the last tricks. > > Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, > or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he > apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > > Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions > of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 15:12:23 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:12:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4986F6EF.7070806@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F6EF.7070806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001301c98540$44c126c0$ce437440$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> I believe you stated that the original AC ruling was incorrect for a > >>> different reason? May I ask why? > >>> > >> No, the original Director ruling was wrong - by giving a weighted score. > > > > Why was this wrong? > > > > Because the claim laws state that the worst of all possible results must > be given - this is not a L12 AS which can be varied by the AC, and, by > the extension you cite below, by the CTD. True enough, I forgot that for a moment. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 15:21:28 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:21:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: On Jan 31, 2009, at 1:53 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following > case. > Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two > cards > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps > out". He > makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the > last > two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > > In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > both of the last tricks. > > Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not > claim, > or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high > (as he > apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > > Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the > opinions > of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Two tricks to the defense. If "he 'believes there are no more trumps out'", it may still be "normal" for him to play to hedge against the possibility that he is wrong. But what is that play? If he has forgotten a high trump, as was the case, he must play the heart first to take a trick, but if he has forgotten a low trump he must play his trump first to take two. It's a coin flip, and he loses. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 2 15:21:40 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:21:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > This was not the reasoning of the AC. So of course it was not mentioned > in the script. > The reasoning was that when a declarer is faced with what he believes to > be winners in more than one suit, and a set of trumps (that he believes > are the only ones left) then it is considered rational for him to chose > any of the side suits to cash first (top-down), but that is it not > considered rational for him to cash the trump suit as if this were just > any other suit. > AG : to the contrary, many players will cash one more trump just to be sure. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 15:41:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:41:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001401c98544$62a57250$27f056f0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............... > The reasoning was that when a declarer is faced with what he believes to > be winners in more than one suit, and a set of trumps (that he believes > are the only ones left) then it is considered rational for him to chose > any of the side suits to cash first (top-down), but that is it not > considered rational for him to cash the trump suit as if this were just > any other suit. Not even to safeguard against surprise from a possibly forgotten (small) trump? I just don't buy it. (Nor does the rest of Norway apparently seem to do.) Sven From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 2 15:49:31 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 15:49:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be><001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> <4986AC2A.9050807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001d01c98545$750a0b80$15844c59@chello.pl> > Look Sven, you know the laws are not like that. > The law does _not_ say that the opponents get the benefit of _any_ line, > only of non-irrational ones. > You yourself give one exception - running a suit bottom-up. > I go just one exception further in what I call irrational. You're right, there are exceptions. But all of them are the plays which are really idiotic, and what's important, they result in totally different outcomes. Running suits from bottom usually leads to losing unnecessary tricks, the same goes for underruffing, not overruffing, not making 100% finesse, playing Queen (from AQ) under the King etc. These are all the plays that never win, rarely are even, usually are worse, much worse. But if a player has only sure winners, playing them in a random order neither wins nor loses - it is always even. So no order is irrational, all are rational. That is pure logic, Herman. > You cannot win this argument on the law text alone. I find it irrational > to play the trump from A-A-A-trump 2, you apparently don't find this > irrational, but there is nothing in the laws to tell us who is right here. > So stop trying to convince me that yours is the only possible correct > ruling, and stop criticizing me for believing that the line should be > drawn somewhat further. Imagine the man who is to choose one coin from four. Three of those coins are large, shining, with fine drawings, one is small, looks "dirty", but all of them have the same denomination. Would you find it irrational if the man chose that fourth coin? He just wants to pay with those coins, not to collect them. He prefers the small one because it takes less place in his wallet. For me it is fully rational, as is every other choice. The situation is analogous to AAA2. All those cards are equal at the moment of the claim, all have the same "denomination". You are constantly stating that for you playing 2 first would be irrational. But why? The only reason is a safety play. But apart from the fact that we don't allow the faulty claimers to make safety plays, that claimer has simply no reason to make a safety play. He is curtailing the play because he thinks all his cards are high. If he had any, even the smallest doubt he could issue a two-word phrase "trump last" or "Aces first". Not too much trouble, right? But he didn't. For him 2 of trumps was as much worth as a side Ace. Both were sure winners. For him playing 2 before A wasn't irrational, even if it was for somebody who was unsure whether his trump is really the last one. The man choosing coins doesn't take a large one just in case his mind is deluded and the small one has a smaller denomination. He believes his sight and mind at the moment of the choice. Put those coins far away from the man, so that he couldn't be sure of the denomination of the smaller coin, and now it is possible he will make a safety choice (large one). The difference between being sure and not being sure usually has an impact on the decision. But the claimer *is sure* at the moment of his claim. That's something you are failing to understand. In my opinion it derives from your own bad claiming habits (claiming because "it feels like ok", not because you are sure that you have the rest or any other number of tricks). Sorry, but claims should serve as time-and-effort-savers in *obvious* situations, not as lazy players' excuses not to play the cards and force the opponents (and the TDs) to establish the outcome of the deal. > >> Herman. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 15:54:46 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 09:54:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > If you don't understand the difference between a high spade and the > last > trump you have not played much bridge. Most bridge players draw trumps > until there are no more out, and then start on the other suits, > leaving > the trumps to get back in when something strange happens. > When they have all tricks but are uncertain, they will cash all > winners > in side suits, leaving the trumps till last. To act any differently > seems irrational to me. Why it would be different if one "knows" all > side suits are winners and all trumps are out is beyond me. Declarer draws trumps until he belives there are no more out. It is clear from his hand, however, that it can do no harm to play one more high trump just in case he might have somehow miscounted the suit, so he does. Herman argues that he has played irrationally. I disagree. > Of course there are reasons to play trumps first - squeezes, > communication, checking for outstanding trumps, whatever. But barring > any of these reasons, no player I know will regard trumps as "just > another suit". > > As long as our opinions continue to differ to this degree, there is > only > one solution: the WBF LC, or the WBF AC, or the EBL LC, or the EBL AC > (in that order of precedence) should write down what they believe the > correct solution is. And after that, Sven, and Herman, should abide by > that decision. Of course the NBF or the BBF can intervene as well, > but I > fail to see why this should be national matter. > > FWIW, the EBL AC has issued such a declaration, in the appeal you know > quite well. Why can you not agree that this is a precedent? Why can > you > not consider this matter closed? There is nothing at all amibiguous about giving declarer the worst of it, no justification for either line or play to be objectively considered irrational, and no gain from making either of them so by fiat. I fail to see a problem in need of a solution here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 2 16:00:56 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:00:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003a01c98547$0d2e9a60$15844c59@chello.pl> > > Richard Hills: > > > > Note that the following hypothetical sentence was excluded from any > > express mention in the new 2007 Law 70E2: > > > > "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'trumps last') > > in which the Director shall deem different suits played if this was > > not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any > > other requirement of this Law)." > > > > OK, that was not mentioned. > But neither was there mention that the RA does not have the right to > specify such an order. Neither there is any mention in Law 1 that the RA does not have the right to specify that 2 beats an Ace. Sorry, the laws (especially since 2007) explicitly state which parts of it may be regulated by RAs. > Do you agree that the EBL has the right to say "we believe it is > irrational to cash trumps before last"? Yes. As long as "EBL" is a shortcut for "Exchange: Bin Loony". > Herman. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 16:09:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:09:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> This was not the reasoning of the AC. So of course it was not mentioned >> in the script. >> The reasoning was that when a declarer is faced with what he believes to >> be winners in more than one suit, and a set of trumps (that he believes >> are the only ones left) then it is considered rational for him to chose >> any of the side suits to cash first (top-down), but that is it not >> considered rational for him to cash the trump suit as if this were just >> any other suit. >> > AG : to the contrary, many players will cash one more trump just to be sure. > Yes, maybe that is also a way to look at this case. But the question here is not of knowing the trump suit is "high", but rather "last". Especially when holding trumps in both hands, it is irrational to use them both, just in case one is left out. Remember, we are not talking about uncertain declarers, but of certain ones. It is not logical to give a "certain" declarer the doubt of an uncertain one. "I am certain all the trumps have gone, but I will use my 7 and 6 of trumps just in case I missed the 8 - thereby losing the lead and the ability to get back in". As David B remarked: with Ax of trumps, declarers will always cash one more, but with 32 they will not. I feel it is easier to simply state that with trumps one "knows" to be the last ones, no trumps will be played until necessary. Herman. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 2 16:09:24 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:09:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> Richard Hills, Marvin French, Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and David Burn suggest different interpretations of the law. Thus different directors rule differently in identical circumstances. Directors can appreciate this as another triumph for the delegation of legislative responsibility by law-makers to local organisations and directors. Again, players suffer from resulting inconsistency and unfairness. If we stick with versions of current law, then, as a player, I prefer Sven Pran's and David Burn's strict interpretation. Their draconian view may be simpler and fairer but its problem is that it *deters* clains. This flouts the basic intention of claim law - to save pointless thought and speed the game, by encouraging claims. Herman de Wael's looser interpretation encourages claims and attempts to achieve "equity"; hence it is more in keeping with the spirit of the law; but the practical result is inconsistent rulinegs. I suppose the law-book could be augmented with a fairly comprehensive set of defaults (eg cards are played top-down except that blockages are avoided)-- and detailed guidance on how to appy them. Then Herman's approach might work at international level. It would still be impracticable for busy club directors. They can't cope with current legislation. Furthermore, mere players don't have the time to assimilate complexity. The law is already too complicated, sophisticated, and subjective. The old on-line law has worked well, in practice. It is simple, fair and encourages claims more than any interpretation of face-to-face law: - Declarer claims by exposing his hand and stating a number of tricks, with or without a detailed claim statement. - Defenders contest the claim by playing on. - In practice, in my experience, there's no hassle and directors aren't involved. In theory, however, the director has a vital role: If the director deems claimer to be "fishing" (eg to resolve a 2-way finesse) then he rules in favour of the fish and imposes a severe penalty on the angler. Whatever the law, a claim by *defender* is more fraught. A variation of the old rule would be simple and fair. If declarer contests the claim, then claimer's partner's hand becomes penalty cards, visible only to declarer. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 16:17:21 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:17:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > By writing "I'm not as harsh as David Burn" I meant I did not support > forcing the player to make such idiotic plays as you described - discarding > Aces instead of ruffing. "Irrational" rider would solve it, although it > should be understood as really irrational, possibly with definition or with > clarifying examples (to not let doves like Herman to interpret it in order > to help "poor" faulty claimers). > I don't like the epithet "doves". Here we are, with a minor difference of opinion. I don't let declarers off the hook. But I wish to give opponents tricks they can get in real play, no more than that. I feel that when playing it out, not a single table in the world will see the trumps being played. Not a single opponent will get this trick. I don't want to give faulty claimers worse scores than they could have gotten when playing it out. That is not being a dove, that is being realistic. You are the ones that want to punish the declarer for his faulty claim. You say you are not "Burn" who is sometimes credited with very harsh claim rulings, and yet you award a trick that in my opinion could not be lost in normal play. In my opinion, yes. I agree that it is just an opinion. But I'm not a dove for that. And I'm all for clarifying examples. This case is screaming for a clarification. We have one. The Tenerife appeal from the EBL You don't accept that as a clarification? Then please ask someone even higher to clarify. I'm in favour of that - and I will accept the decision for the sake of unity. In the meanwhile, I will ask the EBL AC to issue a clarification on its position. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 2 16:26:08 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:26:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001d01c98545$750a0b80$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be><001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> <4986AC2A.9050807@skynet.be> <001d01c98545$750a0b80$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49871090.7090604@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> Look Sven, you know the laws are not like that. >> The law does _not_ say that the opponents get the benefit of _any_ line, >> only of non-irrational ones. >> You yourself give one exception - running a suit bottom-up. >> I go just one exception further in what I call irrational. > > You're right, there are exceptions. But all of them are the plays which are > really idiotic, Well, changing a word from "irrational" to "really idiotic" will not help our discussion. I find playing trumps first equally "really idiotic". OK? and what's important, they result in totally different > outcomes. Running suits from bottom usually leads to losing unnecessary > tricks, the same goes for underruffing, not overruffing, not making 100% > finesse, playing Queen (from AQ) under the King etc. These are all the plays > that never win, rarely are even, usually are worse, much worse. But if a > player has only sure winners, playing them in a random order neither wins > nor loses - it is always even. So no order is irrational, all are rational. > That is pure logic, Herman. > No it's not, Maciej. Because your premise is wrong. The player has not "only sure winners". He has "high cards" and "last trumps". Playing them in that order is rational, in the other one is irrational. He does not have "high spades", he has "last trumps". >> You cannot win this argument on the law text alone. I find it irrational >> to play the trump from A-A-A-trump 2, you apparently don't find this >> irrational, but there is nothing in the laws to tell us who is right here. >> So stop trying to convince me that yours is the only possible correct >> ruling, and stop criticizing me for believing that the line should be >> drawn somewhat further. > > Imagine the man who is to choose one coin from four. Three of those coins > are large, shining, with fine drawings, one is small, looks "dirty", but all > of them have the same denomination. Would you find it irrational if the man > chose that fourth coin? He just wants to pay with those coins, not to > collect them. He prefers the small one because it takes less place in his > wallet. For me it is fully rational, as is every other choice. > Yet again, a faulty analogy. In our example, he does not have 4 coins of the same denomination. He has 3 pieces of 2 EUROs with German Eagles on them, and one with a San Marino castle. No need to collect them - the San Marino one will be kept. Analogies like this will not help us. > The situation is analogous to AAA2. All those cards are equal at the moment > of the claim, all have the same "denomination". > No, three are side suits, one is trumps. > You are constantly stating that for you playing 2 first would be irrational. > But why? The only reason is a safety play. But apart from the fact that we > don't allow the faulty claimers to make safety plays, that claimer has > simply no reason to make a safety play. He is curtailing the play because he > thinks all his cards are high. If he had any, even the smallest doubt he > could issue a two-word phrase "trump last" or "Aces first". Not too much > trouble, right? But he didn't. For him 2 of trumps was as much worth as a > side Ace. Both were sure winners. For him playing 2 before A wasn't > irrational, even if it was for somebody who was unsure whether his trump is > really the last one. > Well, I find it irrational to play the trump 2 first. And nothing you say will change that impression. > The man choosing coins doesn't take a large one just in case his mind is > deluded and the small one has a smaller denomination. He believes his sight > and mind at the moment of the choice. Put those coins far away from the man, > so that he couldn't be sure of the denomination of the smaller coin, and now > it is possible he will make a safety choice (large one). > > The difference between being sure and not being sure usually has an impact > on the decision. But the claimer *is sure* at the moment of his claim. > That's something you are failing to understand. No, of course not. Which is why I don't allow him to play it "just to be sure". > In my opinion it derives > from your own bad claiming habits (claiming because "it feels like ok", not > because you are sure that you have the rest or any other number of tricks). > Sorry, but claims should serve as time-and-effort-savers in *obvious* > situations, not as lazy players' excuses not to play the cards and force the > opponents (and the TDs) to establish the outcome of the deal. > And what is the problem with that as long as the outcome is not higher than any that can be achieved at the table? IMO (and I stress it is only my opinion) not a single player will play the trumps first. >>>> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 16:57:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:57:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite > Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal > lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good > if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But > there was no "original clarification statement." That's just silly. Sure, "any" can be one of the more ambiguous words in the English language. Amedican Heritage gives both "one, no matter which, from three or more" and "every" as valid definitions. Is anyone other than Marvin in serious doubt as to which the authors of the law intended? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 17:14:52 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:14:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c98551$615cb2c0$24161840$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > AG : to the contrary, many players will cash one more trump just to be sure. > > > > Yes, maybe that is also a way to look at this case. > > But the question here is not of knowing the trump suit is "high", but > rather "last". Especially when holding trumps in both hands, it is > irrational to use them both, just in case one is left out. > > Remember, we are not talking about uncertain declarers, but of certain > ones. It is not logical to give a "certain" declarer the doubt of an > uncertain one. > > "I am certain all the trumps have gone, but I will use my 7 and 6 of > trumps just in case I missed the 8 - thereby losing the lead and the > ability to get back in". > > As David B remarked: with Ax of trumps, declarers will always cash one > more, but with 32 they will not. > I feel it is easier to simply state that with trumps one "knows" to be > the last ones, no trumps will be played until necessary. You discuss the wrong question: What you apparently assert that players usually do is immaterial and irrelevant. The relevant question is if it is "irrational" for a player who "knows" that all his remaining cards (including trumps) are unconditional winners, to cash his winning trumps first and then continue with his other winners. We all agree that it is "irrational" to play the Queen from AQ under a King, to underruff instead of overruff when possible, or to play a running suit bottom up instead of top down if that costs the loss of trick(s). But it appears to me that "we" (i.e. every contributor to this thread except HDW) all agree there is nothing "irrational" for a player who "knows" that all his cards are winners if he first cashes his winning trumps and then continues with cashing his tricks in the other suits. IMO you will need to show some cause for considering this to be "irrational". (I for one don't even consider it "careless" but simply just one among several normal lines of play.) Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 17:36:22 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:36:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie ........................ > If we stick with versions of current law, then, as a player, I prefer Sven Pran's and > David Burn's strict interpretation. Their draconian view may be simpler and fairer > but its problem is that it *deters* clains. This flouts the basic intention of claim law - > to save pointless thought and speed the game, by encouraging claims. This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the game. Of course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt for anybody. This usually requires that the play on the board is approaching its end anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to play. With no problems how long time does it take to play these five tricks? Maybe ten seconds. And how long does it take to make a claim, show the cards and make opponents convinced that the claim is OK? So how much time is saved on the normal, uncontested claim? Then consider the result of encouraging claims whenever possible: We need firm, consistent rules on how to handle uncontested claims. Among other particulars these rules must be worded so that a tired or exhausted player cannot escape a difficult choice situation by just claiming and have the Director and/or an AC playing his hand for him. This is the main reason why the rules explicitly states that any doubt about choice shall be resolved in favour of the opponents. The infamous claim that has been object of the discussion between HDW and me happened with seven more tricks to play. How much time would have been save d if the Norwegian player instead of claiming had just played out these last seven tricks? My assertion is that claims are not to be encouraged except in the very exceptional and most trivial cases. Any claim that could cause discussion will as a general rule take more time that had the board been played out in the regular way. ................ > The old on-line law has worked well, in practice. It is simple, fair and encourages > claims more than any interpretation of face-to-face law: > - Declarer claims by exposing his hand and stating a number of tricks, with or > without a detailed claim statement. > - Defenders contest the claim by playing on. > - In practice, in my experience, there's no hassle and directors aren't involved. In > theory, however, the director has a vital role: If the director deems claimer to be > "fishing" (eg to resolve a 2-way finesse) then he rules in favour of the fish and > imposes a severe penalty on the angler. The main objection to this procedure is that contesting a claim alerts the claimer that his claim can be faulty. History has shown examples where such alerts have enabled the claimer to change his line of play and find a winning one, often in direct (but difficult to prove) violation of Law 16. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 17:43:22 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 11:43:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: <724A2CE0-7FA3-46F0-8CA9-28586E55AF31@starpower.net> On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Suppose declarer claims with xxxxxx opposite AQJxxx of trumps, a 12- > card > fit. I think we would want to give declarer that "normal" play is > to drop > the king, even if it is offside. In other words, accept the claim. > However, if declarer leads towards the AQJ, sees RHO discard, and > concedes > a trick, I think we don't want to give back the conceded trick to > declarer. We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate doubtful points not covered by the claim statement, but we accept irrational lines of play if they are explicitly specified (leaving nothing to adjudicate). And losing the the king in a twelve-card fit is irrational, isn't it? WTP? > But the laws seem treat the above two situations as exactly the same. Not so. The declarer who conceded has said explicitly that he will lose to the king, so he will lose to the king. Unless the claim "is doubted by any player" (no evidence of that here), L70, which allows the first claimer to take all the tricks in the suit, doesn't even get invoked for the condeder. > The unstated principle for me is that claimer or conceder should > not be > given credit for making a better play than the quality of the > faulty claim > or concession. Right. That's why we allow irrational plays that were explicit in the claim or concession statement to stand. > Another example is declarer who claimed the rest, not counting that > he was > one winner short, then got credit for running a squeeze, as that was > normal play for a player of his caliber. (Or that's how I remember > it.) I'd be willing to bet we could (perhaps not without difficulty) construct an example on which we would agree that a declarer with a full count on the hand and enough winners for all but one of the rest who has gotten a trick ahead of himself and said "I have the rest" thinking there were one fewer tricks to go should be given credit for noticing an that an opponent's discard would have established an additional winner, provided that the opponent would be forced to make some discard that provides the extra trick regardless of the order in which declarer plays out his winners, and regardless of what declarer pitches from dummy, assuming only that he will not throw a particular card when dummy has a lower card of the same suit. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 2 18:04:21 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:04:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49872795.9010502@aol.com> A simple solution. Why not claim properly as specified in the laws? (Saying how you would play.) Almost all problems arise because this is not followed. (As in the case in question.) If correct procedure is not followed then any doubt should be decided against the player making the false (or incomplete) claim. That might encourage him to claim correctly next time and thus there would be no problem. As Richard says: what's the problem? JE Nigel Guthrie schrieb: > Richard Hills, Marvin French, Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and David Burn suggest different interpretations of the law. Thus different directors rule differently in identical circumstances. Directors can appreciate this as another triumph for the delegation of legislative responsibility by law-makers to local organisations and directors. Again, players suffer from resulting inconsistency and unfairness. > > If we stick with versions of current law, then, as a player, I prefer Sven Pran's and David Burn's strict interpretation. Their draconian view may be simpler and fairer but its problem is that it *deters* clains. This flouts the basic intention of claim law - to save pointless thought and speed the game, by encouraging claims. > > Herman de Wael's looser interpretation encourages claims and attempts to achieve "equity"; hence it is more in keeping with the spirit of the law; but the practical result is inconsistent rulinegs. I suppose the law-book could be augmented with a fairly comprehensive set of defaults (eg cards are played top-down except that blockages are avoided)-- and detailed guidance on how to appy them. Then Herman's approach might work at international level. It would still be impracticable for busy club directors. They can't cope with current legislation. Furthermore, mere players don't have the time to assimilate complexity. The law is already too complicated, sophisticated, and subjective. > > The old on-line law has worked well, in practice. It is simple, fair and encourages claims more than any interpretation of face-to-face law: > - Declarer claims by exposing his hand and stating a number of tricks, with or without a detailed claim statement. > - Defenders contest the claim by playing on. > - In practice, in my experience, there's no hassle and directors aren't involved. In theory, however, the director has a vital role: If the director deems claimer to be "fishing" (eg to resolve a 2-way finesse) then he rules in favour of the fish and imposes a severe penalty on the angler. > > Whatever the law, a claim by *defender* is more fraught. A variation of the old rule would be simple and fair. If declarer contests the claim, then claimer's partner's hand becomes penalty cards, visible only to declarer. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 2 18:14:49 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:14:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49872A09.80002@aol.com> Hola Herman! You say "when playing it out". That is the problem, by making a "false" or "specious" or incomplete" claim the claimer did not "play it out". He felt it wasn't necessary to play it out so he claimed. (But it is surely not kosher to claim and say "I BELIEVE there are no more trumps out". If he is in doubt he shouldn't claim.) Since we don't know what the claimer was thinking (due to his odd way of claiming) we don't know what he proposed to play next: the trump or the other card. Either is possible since he didn't bother to tell us. Thus I agree with all of the others who say he must play the less favourable card for his side. To his way of reasoning there is no less favourable card since he seems to believe all are good. Two corollaries for me: when there is doubt I tend to decide against the player who caused the problem (by not following proper procedure), and in this (and similar) cases: the card played is the one which is best for the opponents. This is not a case of a possible irrational play (such as playing small from each hand with A2 and K3). Ciao, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Bystry wrote: >> By writing "I'm not as harsh as David Burn" I meant I did not support >> forcing the player to make such idiotic plays as you described - discarding >> Aces instead of ruffing. "Irrational" rider would solve it, although it >> should be understood as really irrational, possibly with definition or with >> clarifying examples (to not let doves like Herman to interpret it in order >> to help "poor" faulty claimers). >> > > I don't like the epithet "doves". > > Here we are, with a minor difference of opinion. I don't let declarers > off the hook. But I wish to give opponents tricks they can get in real > play, no more than that. I feel that when playing it out, not a single > table in the world will see the trumps being played. Not a single > opponent will get this trick. I don't want to give faulty claimers worse > scores than they could have gotten when playing it out. That is not > being a dove, that is being realistic. > You are the ones that want to punish the declarer for his faulty claim. > You say you are not "Burn" who is sometimes credited with very harsh > claim rulings, and yet you award a trick that in my opinion could not be > lost in normal play. > > In my opinion, yes. I agree that it is just an opinion. But I'm not a > dove for that. > > And I'm all for clarifying examples. > This case is screaming for a clarification. > We have one. The Tenerife appeal from the EBL > You don't accept that as a clarification? Then please ask someone even > higher to clarify. I'm in favour of that - and I will accept the > decision for the sake of unity. > In the meanwhile, I will ask the EBL AC to issue a clarification on its > position. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 18:47:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 12:47:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius In-Reply-To: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> References: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> In the "a question" thread, Herman De Wael asserted: >> >>> ...I've used it before - we had a case like this in the EBL AC. >>> We wrote that "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps which >>> are kept till last." I think that this should constitute a >>> precedent and be treated as "case law"... >> >> There are two reasons why this 2001 EBL Appeal does not constitute >> a precedent. >> >> _Imprimis_ is that Herman De Wael is incorrectly paraphrasing the >> scribe of that 2001 Appeals Committee. The scribe actually wrote: >> >> "There is a well-established principle that, when a claimer knows >> he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed 'normal'. >> It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, >> this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." > > Yes, both Hermans remember writing this. > >> No doubt the 2001 scribe should sue the 2009 Herman De Wael for >> gross misrepresentation. :-) If the scribe does sue, would that >> count as "Herman bashing"? :-) >> >> Because of the caveat "in a case like this" it is clear that the >> Appeals Committee was ruling that this case was a special exception >> to the rule that cards believed to be high are played in any order. >> So the Appeals Committee was _not_ deciding a new general rule and >> precedent. (Since Grattan Endicott was a member of the Appeals >> Committee, I am not surprised that it gave such a carefully nuanced >> explanation of its ruling.) > > OK, so tell me what "in a case like this" means. > The AC stated a general principle "suits are cashed in random order". > The AC also decided "trumps are cashed last". > They said "in a case like this". Tell me what that means. > > Is the case that Jeff described a "case like this"? > I believe it is. [snip] >> Note that the following hypothetical sentence was excluded from any >> express mention in the new 2007 Law 70E2: >> >> "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'trumps last') >> in which the Director shall deem different suits played if this was >> not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any >> other requirement of this Law)." > > OK, that was not mentioned. > But neither was there mention that the RA does not have the right to > specify such an order. > > If the NBF decides that the order which the EBL has issued (trumps > last) > does not conform to their wishes, they may change that issuance. > > But no-one has so far given such an order. > So what is your point, Richard? > > Do you agree that the EBL has the right to say "we believe it is > irrational to cash trumps before last"? Logically they don't, but, of course, de facto they do, as the WBF leaves it to its affiliate RA to decree whatever they choose. > Do you agree that they did say so? I have seen absolutely nothing so far to suggest that they have. > Do you agree that this saying, if it has the power of precedent, has > kept such power after 2007? > > All of which does not help you, of course, in sunny Oz-land, sadly not > affiliated to the EBL. Herman has taken a vast and unjustified leap from "a specific AC adjudicating a specific case at an EBL-sanctioned tournament said so" to "the EBL has said so" Sorry, but tournament ACs, however impressive their membership (or their scribe) may be, do not speak for the RA. If individual cases from individual ACs set definitive precedents, we would hardly ever get to make any ruling on anything, as we would continually find ourselves paralyzed by contradictory definitive precedents. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 2 18:47:42 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:47:42 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <0D59B4B52E4B4EFDA267746B6F82697B@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:54 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a question >I disagree with both answers so far. > It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. > I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which > are held till last". > I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without > objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the > two that they could get. > It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. > Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider > "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the > rule? Would they object to that rule? > > Herman. count me with Sven, Herman. 2 tricks. John > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. >> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a >> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. >> >> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets >> both of the last tricks. >> >> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it >> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done >> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps >> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, >> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he >> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart >> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. >> >> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 >> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions >> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 19:08:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:08:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> Message-ID: <8192A867-CCAC-4DD1-B6E3-006C07947981@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 5:57 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> I believe you stated that the original AC ruling was incorrect for a >> different reason? May I ask why? >> >> No, the original Director ruling was wrong - by giving a weighted >> score. > > Why was this wrong? Because contested claims (controlled by L70) and adjusted scores (controlled by L12) are two entirely different and unrelated things. "The objective of a 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" [L12B1]. An incomplete claim statement is not the sort of infraction that can give rise to "damage to [the] NOS", nor can the claimer (at the point of adjudication) have realized any advantage from having claimed incorrectly. L12, with its authority to award weighted scores, has nothing to do with such cases. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 2 19:13:52 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:13:52 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> Message-ID: <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the game. Of course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt for anybody. This usually requires that the play on the board is approaching its end anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to play. With no problems how long time does it take to play these five tricks? Maybe ten seconds. And how long does it take to make a claim, show the cards and make opponents convinced that the claim is OK? So how much time is saved on the normal, uncontested claim? Then consider the result of encouraging claims whenever possible: We need firm, consistent rules on how to handle uncontested claims. Among other particulars these rules must be worded so that a tired or exhausted player cannot escape a difficult choice situation by just claiming and have the Director and/or an AC playing his hand for him. This is the main reason why the rules explicitly states that any doubt about choice shall be resolved in favour of the opponents. The infamous claim that has been object of the discussion between HDW and me happened with seven more tricks to play. How much time would have been saved if the Norwegian player instead of claiming had just played out these last seven tricks? My assertion is that claims are not to be encouraged except in the very exceptional and most trivial cases. Any claim that could cause discussion will as a general rule take more time that had the board been played out in the regular way. [Nigel] In my experience, claims do save time; just as importantly they save opponents unnecessary hassle. [Sven Pran] The main objection to this procedure [on-line claim law] is that contesting a claim alerts the claimer that his claim can be faulty. History has shown examples where such alerts have enabled the claimer to change his line of play and find a winning one, often in direct (but difficult to prove) violation of Law 16. [Nigel] I believe Sven that this kind of thing can happen on-line :( Although I've noticed it only in a face-to-face context. If such a ploy seems likely, under either claim protocol, it should be penalised. I concede that on-line claims protocol isn't perfect :( I just claim that it is simpler and fairer than the current face-to-face law :) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 2 19:25:39 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 18:25:39 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49872795.9010502@aol.com> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <49872795.9010502@aol.com> Message-ID: <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net> [Jeff Easterson] A simple solution. Why not claim properly as specified in the laws? (Saying how you would play.) Almost all problems arise because this is not followed. (As in the case in question.) If correct procedure is not followed then any doubt should be decided against the player making the false (or incomplete) claim. That might encourage him to claim correctly next time and thus there would be no problem. As Richard says: what's the problem? JE [Nigel] Richard contentiously asks "What's the problem?" about any half-baked solution :) I agree with Jeff that the director should insist on a proper claim. The *problem* with a law that insists on a comprehensive claim is that it *deters* claims. For example, some players find it hard to express themselves lucidly, especially in a foreign language. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 2 19:26:05 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:26:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:36:22 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > ........................ >> If we stick with versions of current law, then, as a player, I prefer >> Sven > Pran's and >> David Burn's strict interpretation. Their draconian view may be simpler > and fairer >> but its problem is that it *deters* clains. This flouts the basic > intention of claim law - >> to save pointless thought and speed the game, by encouraging claims. > > This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the game. > Of > course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt for anybody. > This usually requires that the play on the board is approaching its end > anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to play. With no problems > how > long time does it take to play these five tricks? Maybe ten seconds. And > how > long does it take to make a claim, show the cards and make opponents > convinced that the claim is OK? > > So how much time is saved on the normal, uncontested claim? > > Then consider the result of encouraging claims whenever possible: We need > firm, consistent rules on how to handle uncontested claims. Among other > particulars these rules must be worded so that a tired or exhausted > player > cannot escape a difficult choice situation by just claiming and have the > Director and/or an AC playing his hand for him. This is the main reason > why > the rules explicitly states that any doubt about choice shall be > resolved in > favour of the opponents. > > The infamous claim that has been object of the discussion between HDW > and me > happened with seven more tricks to play. How much time would have been > save > d if the Norwegian player instead of claiming had just played out these > last > seven tricks? > > My assertion is that claims are not to be encouraged except in the very > exceptional and most trivial cases. Any claim that could cause discussion > will as a general rule take more time that had the board been played out > in > the regular way. > This doesn't work well for me. I sit there and think, and I realize that declarer has the rest of the tricks. I play my card, then declarer plays another card. I am bored. I fold up my cards. So I would much rather you encouraged declarer's to claim. Or, going the other way, I have the rest of the tricks. It is very boring to watch a defender think about what to do. And it doesn't seem fair to the defender. Both cases are arguably prolonging the game and wasting people's time. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 19:36:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:36:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:41 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > The reasoning was that when a declarer is faced with what he > believes to > be winners in more than one suit, and a set of trumps (that he > believes > are the only ones left) then it is considered rational for him to > chose > any of the side suits to cash first (top-down), but that is it not > considered rational for him to cash the trump suit as if this were > just > any other suit. So here I am, with what I believe to be winners in more than one suit and a set of trumps that I believe are the only ones left. I do not claim. I simply pull cards from my hand at random, and play them in the order they come out. The first card that comes out just happens to be a high trump, and when I play it, lo and behold, an unexpected small trump appears from an opponent. I continue to play my cards at random, and take the all the tricks. Lucky me. I would challenge Herman to explain to me how I have misplayed the hand. What specific error did I make that constituted a patently inferior play? It cannot possibly make any sense whatsoever to assert that I have played the hand "irrationally" without having committed any demonstrable error or misplay. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 2 19:41:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:41:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:13:52 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] > This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the game. > Of course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt for > anybody. This usually requires that the play on the board is approaching > its end anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to play. With no > problems how long time does it take to play these five tricks? Maybe ten > seconds. And how long does it take to make a claim, show the cards and > make opponents convinced that the claim is OK? So how much time is saved > on the normal, uncontested claim? Then consider the result of > encouraging claims whenever possible: We need firm, consistent rules on > how to handle uncontested claims. Among other particulars these rules > must be worded so that a tired or exhausted player cannot escape a > difficult choice situation by just claiming and have the Director and/or > an AC playing his hand for him. This is the main reason why the rules > explicitly states that any doubt about choice shall be resolved in > favour of the opponents. The infamous claim that has been object of the > discussion between HDW and me happened with seven more tricks to play. > How much time would have been saved if the Norwegian player instead of > claiming had just played out these last seven tricks? My assertion is > that claims are not to be encouraged except in the very exceptional and > most trivial cases. Any claim that could cause discussion will as a > general rule take more time that had the board been played out in the > regular way. > > > [Nigel] > In my experience, claims do save time; just as importantly they save > opponents unnecessary hassle. > > [Sven Pran] > The main objection to this procedure [on-line claim law] is that > contesting a claim alerts the claimer that his claim can be faulty. > History has shown examples where such alerts have enabled the claimer to > change his line of play and find a winning one, often in direct (but > difficult to prove) violation of Law 16. > > [Nigel] > I believe Sven that this kind of thing can happen on-line :( Although > I've noticed it only in a face-to-face context. If such a ploy seems > likely, under either claim protocol, it should be penalised. I concede > that on-line claims protocol isn't perfect :( I just claim that it is > simpler and fairer than the current face-to-face law :) If you allowed play to continue, would the contesting of the claim be UI to declarer? It would seem to be VERY useful information. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 19:53:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 13:53:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius In-Reply-To: <003a01c98547$0d2e9a60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> <003a01c98547$0d2e9a60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <9CA21E6D-390D-4C2C-BBCF-CDDB4548784A@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Bystry wrote: > Neither there is any mention in Law 1 that the RA does not have the > right to > specify that 2 beats an Ace. Sorry, the laws (especially since 2007) > explicitly state which parts of it may be regulated by RAs. There have been numerous statements made in this forum, in the course of discussion of various subjects, by knowledgeable folks affiliated with WBF/WBFLC, which would lead one to be nearly certain that, if some RA were to issue a regulation specifying that a deuce beats an ace, the WBF would not choose to criticize publically nor to intervene. Thus my earlier reply to Herman: >> Do you agree that the EBL has the right to say "we believe it is >> irrational to cash trumps before last"? > > Logically they don't, but, of course, de facto they do... Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 20:11:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:11:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> WARNING: The following message may appear to some to be "Herman- bashing". On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > Richard Hills, Marvin French, Herman de Wael, Sven Pran, and David > Burn suggest different interpretations of the law. Thus different > directors rule differently in identical circumstances. Directors > can appreciate this as another triumph for the delegation of > legislative responsibility by law-makers to local organisations and > directors. Again, players suffer from resulting inconsistency and > unfairness. > > If we stick with versions of current law, then, as a player, I > prefer Sven Pran's and David Burn's strict interpretation. Their > draconian view may be simpler and fairer but its problem is that it > *deters* clains. This flouts the basic intention of claim law - to > save pointless thought and speed the game, by encouraging claims. > > Herman de Wael's looser interpretation encourages claims and > attempts to achieve "equity"; hence it is more in keeping with the > spirit of the law; but the practical result is inconsistent > rulinegs. I suppose the law-book could be augmented with a fairly > comprehensive set of defaults (eg cards are played top-down except > that blockages are avoided)-- and detailed guidance on how to appy > them. Then Herman's approach might work at international level. It > would still be impracticable for busy club directors. They can't > cope with current legislation. Furthermore, mere players don't have > the time to assimilate complexity. The law is already too > complicated, sophisticated, and subjective. Nigel is, IMO, being quite unfair to Richard, Marvin, Sven and David. They have, in this thread, "suggest[ed] different interpretations of the law" in the normative sense, but none of them has ever said anything to suggest that they would ever, as TDs, act according to those interpretations rather than to what they understand to be generally accepted (albeit perhaps regretted) jurisprudential principles. I may strongly disagree with any of them, or they with one another, as to how claims should be adjudicated under our idiosyncratic versions of logical and ideal law, but I am confident that any rulings any of us might make under current law and jurisprudence would differ by a lot less than Nigel is prepared to assume. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 2 20:35:11 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:35:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:57:41 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > >> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite >> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal >> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good >> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But >> there was no "original clarification statement." > > That's just silly. Sure, "any" can be one of the more ambiguous > words in the English language. Amedican Heritage gives both "one, no > matter which, from three or more" and "every" as valid definitions. > Is anyone other than Marvin in serious doubt as to which the authors > of the law intended? Can you paraphrase the law to capture what the author's intended? Or would you like me to try? From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 20:53:23 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 14:53:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49871090.7090604@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be><001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> <4986AC2A.9050807@skynet.be> <001d01c98545$750a0b80$15844c59@chello.pl> <49871090.7090604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6F6CC4EF-E721-4EC8-BADC-555B0E5F5E93@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Bystry wrote: > >> You're right, there are exceptions. But all of them are the plays >> which are >> really idiotic, > > Well, changing a word from "irrational" to "really idiotic" will not > help our discussion. I find playing trumps first equally "really > idiotic". OK? > >> and what's important, they result in totally different >> outcomes. Running suits from bottom usually leads to losing >> unnecessary >> tricks, the same goes for underruffing, not overruffing, not >> making 100% >> finesse, playing Queen (from AQ) under the King etc. These are all >> the plays >> that never win, rarely are even, usually are worse, much worse. >> But if a >> player has only sure winners, playing them in a random order >> neither wins >> nor loses - it is always even. So no order is irrational, all are >> rational. >> That is pure logic, Herman. > > No it's not, Maciej. Because your premise is wrong. The player has not > "only sure winners". He has "high cards" and "last trumps". Playing > them > in that order is rational, in the other one is irrational. He does not > have "high spades", he has "last trumps". > >>> You cannot win this argument on the law text alone. I find it >>> irrational >>> to play the trump from A-A-A-trump 2, you apparently don't find this >>> irrational, but there is nothing in the laws to tell us who is >>> right here. >>> So stop trying to convince me that yours is the only possible >>> correct >>> ruling, and stop criticizing me for believing that the line >>> should be >>> drawn somewhat further. >> >> Imagine the man who is to choose one coin from four. Three of >> those coins >> are large, shining, with fine drawings, one is small, looks >> "dirty", but all >> of them have the same denomination. Would you find it irrational >> if the man >> chose that fourth coin? He just wants to pay with those coins, not to >> collect them. He prefers the small one because it takes less place >> in his >> wallet. For me it is fully rational, as is every other choice. > > Yet again, a faulty analogy. In our example, he does not have 4 > coins of > the same denomination. He has 3 pieces of 2 EUROs with German > Eagles on > them, and one with a San Marino castle. No need to collect them - the > San Marino one will be kept. > > Analogies like this will not help us. > >> The situation is analogous to AAA2. All those cards are equal at >> the moment >> of the claim, all have the same "denomination". > > No, three are side suits, one is trumps. And Herman tells us that it doesn't matter which is which; declarer's trump suit contains, according to Herman, neither "high cards" nor (presumably) "low cards" but rather only "last trumps". So let us assume that the one suit which is trumps is one of the aces. In support of his argument (admittedly back when we were still thinking about the trump deuce), Herman wrote, "I don't let declarers off the hook. But I wish to give opponents tricks they can get in real play, no more than that. I feel that when playing it out, not a single table in the world will see the trumps being played. Not a single opponent will get this trick... That is not being a dove, that is being realistic." Now it is surely true that if he is right about this -- at not a single table in the world will declarer fail to hold his trump (whether ace or deuce can't matter, as neither is high nor low but merely the "last trump") until trick 13 -- then his conclusion follows as inevitably as the day the night. The logic is flawless, but the premise, IMHO, is patently loony. I am 100% certain that somebody, somewhere, would cash that trump ace before trick 13. Is anyone out ther other than Herman really disposed to disagree? > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 2 21:13:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:13:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <724A2CE0-7FA3-46F0-8CA9-28586E55AF31@starpower.net> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <724A2CE0-7FA3-46F0-8CA9-28586E55AF31@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:43:22 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> Suppose declarer claims with xxxxxx opposite AQJxxx of trumps, a 12- >> card >> fit. I think we would want to give declarer that "normal" play is >> to drop >> the king, even if it is offside. In other words, accept the claim. >> However, if declarer leads towards the AQJ, sees RHO discard, and >> concedes >> a trick, I think we don't want to give back the conceded trick to >> declarer. > > We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate doubtful > points not covered by the claim statement, but we accept irrational > lines of play if they are explicitly specified (leaving nothing to > adjudicate). And losing the the king in a twelve-card fit is > irrational, isn't it? WTP? > >> But the laws seem treat the above two situations as exactly the same. > > Not so. The declarer who conceded has said explicitly that he will > lose to the king, so he will lose to the king. Unless the claim "is > doubted by any player" (no evidence of that here), L70, which allows > the first claimer to take all the tricks in the suit, doesn't even > get invoked for the condeder. > >> The unstated principle for me is that claimer or conceder should >> not be >> given credit for making a better play than the quality of the >> faulty claim >> or concession. > > Right. That's why we allow irrational plays that were explicit in > the claim or concession statement to stand. Hmmm, you are saying that we allow irrational plays that were explicit in the concession to stand BECAUSE of some unstated principle that is not in the laws? I have never even heard this said outside the laws, though I believe it to be true. Works for me. But there are a lot of people on blml that will not like you doing that. The laws are pretty clear about when concessions do not stand, and L71C2 makes no reference to the concession statement or quality thereof. From bobpark at consolidated.net Mon Feb 2 22:32:53 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:32:53 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49876685.6010604@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: >
Alain > Gottcheiner wrote: >> Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> This was not the reasoning of the AC. So of course it was not >>> mentioned in the script. >>> The reasoning was that when a declarer is faced with what he >>> believes to be winners in more than one suit, and a set of trumps >>> (that he believes are the only ones left) then it is considered >>> rational for him to chose any of the side suits to cash first >>> (top-down), but that is it not considered rational for him to cash >>> the trump suit as if this were just any other suit. >>> >> AG : to the contrary, many players will cash one more trump just to >> be sure. >> > > Yes, maybe that is also a way to look at this case. > > But the question here is not of knowing the trump suit is "high", but > rather "last". Especially when holding trumps in both hands, it is > irrational to use them both, just in case one is left out. > > Remember, we are not talking about uncertain declarers, but of certain > ones. It is not logical to give a "certain" declarer the doubt of an > uncertain one. > > "I am certain all the trumps have gone, but I will use my 7 and 6 of > trumps just in case I missed the 8 - thereby losing the lead and the > ability to get back in". > > As David B remarked: with Ax of trumps, declarers will always cash one > more, but with 32 they will not. > I feel it is easier to simply state that with trumps one "knows" to be > the last ones, no trumps will be played until necessary. > > Herman. > > >
I'm having trouble understanding Herman's position. In the original example, as I understand it, declarer made a faulty claim for the last 2 tricks. Had he not claimed, he would have taken 0 or 1 tricks, depending on whether he led his last trump or not. Now Herman wants to award him one of the last 2 tricks...the best of all worlds he would have achieved had he not claimed. I fail to see how a faulty claim should be permitted to leave declarer no worse of than had he not claimed at all. --Bob Park From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 2 22:40:35 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 22:40:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius References: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be><003a01c98547$0d2e9a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <9CA21E6D-390D-4C2C-BBCF-CDDB4548784A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <004f01c9857e$e1e7ad00$15844c59@chello.pl> > On Feb 2, 2009, at 10:00 AM, Bystry wrote: > > > Neither there is any mention in Law 1 that the RA does not have the > > right to > > specify that 2 beats an Ace. Sorry, the laws (especially since 2007) > > explicitly state which parts of it may be regulated by RAs. > > There have been numerous statements made in this forum, in the course > of discussion of various subjects, by knowledgeable folks affiliated > with WBF/WBFLC, which would lead one to be nearly certain that, if > some RA were to issue a regulation specifying that a deuce beats an > ace, the WBF would not choose to criticize publically nor to intervene. True. But we are talking about the laws here, not about crazy things that any RA may do. I just wanted to point out that the claim laws did not (formally) allow regulations which are contrary to the letter of those laws. > Thus my earlier reply to Herman: > > >> Do you agree that the EBL has the right to say "we believe it is > >> irrational to cash trumps before last"? > > > > Logically they don't, but, of course, de facto they do... Look above. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 23:04:40 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:04:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <49872795.9010502@aol.com> <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000101c98582$3f2b8830$bd829890$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > [Jeff Easterson] > A simple solution. Why not claim properly as specified in the laws? (Saying how > you would play.) Almost all problems arise because this is not followed. (As in the > case in question.) If correct procedure is not followed then any doubt should be > decided against the player making the false (or incomplete) claim. That might > encourage him to claim correctly next time and thus there would be no problem. > As Richard says: what's the problem? JE > > [Nigel] > Richard contentiously asks "What's the problem?" about any half-baked solution :) > > I agree with Jeff that the director should insist on a proper claim. The *problem* > with a law that insists on a comprehensive claim is that it *deters* claims. For > example, some players find it hard to express themselves lucidly, especially in a > foreign language. Then don't claim, just play it out. That will certainly save time for everybody. Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 2 23:08:45 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:08:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000201c98582$d158f300$740ad900$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:13:52 -0500, Nigel Guthrie > wrote: > > > [Sven Pran] > > This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the game. > > Of course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt for > > anybody. This usually requires that the play on the board is approaching > > its end anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to play. With no > > problems how long time does it take to play these five tricks? Maybe ten > > seconds. And how long does it take to make a claim, show the cards and > > make opponents convinced that the claim is OK? So how much time is saved > > on the normal, uncontested claim? Then consider the result of > > encouraging claims whenever possible: We need firm, consistent rules on > > how to handle uncontested claims. Among other particulars these rules > > must be worded so that a tired or exhausted player cannot escape a > > difficult choice situation by just claiming and have the Director and/or > > an AC playing his hand for him. This is the main reason why the rules > > explicitly states that any doubt about choice shall be resolved in > > favour of the opponents. The infamous claim that has been object of the > > discussion between HDW and me happened with seven more tricks to play. > > How much time would have been saved if the Norwegian player instead of > > claiming had just played out these last seven tricks? My assertion is > > that claims are not to be encouraged except in the very exceptional and > > most trivial cases. Any claim that could cause discussion will as a > > general rule take more time that had the board been played out in the > > regular way. > > > > > > [Nigel] > > In my experience, claims do save time; just as importantly they save > > opponents unnecessary hassle. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > The main objection to this procedure [on-line claim law] is that > > contesting a claim alerts the claimer that his claim can be faulty. > > History has shown examples where such alerts have enabled the claimer to > > change his line of play and find a winning one, often in direct (but > > difficult to prove) violation of Law 16. > > > > [Nigel] > > I believe Sven that this kind of thing can happen on-line :( Although > > I've noticed it only in a face-to-face context. If such a ploy seems > > likely, under either claim protocol, it should be penalised. I concede > > that on-line claims protocol isn't perfect :( I just claim that it is > > simpler and fairer than the current face-to-face law :) > > If you allowed play to continue, would the contesting of the claim be UI > to declarer? It would seem to be VERY useful information. Of course it is UI to the claimer! (That is the main reason why the laws prohibit further play after a claim.) Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 2 23:10:19 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:10:19 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> Message-ID: <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > >> If we stick with versions of current law, then, as a player, I >> prefer Sven Pran's and >> David Burn's strict interpretation. Their draconian view may be >> simpler and fairer >> but its problem is that it *deters* clains. This flouts the basic >> intention of claim law - >> to save pointless thought and speed the game, by encouraging claims. > > This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the > game. That isn't the object; it's a secondary effect. As Nigel suggests, the basic purpose of the claim law is "to save pointless thought"; it is the lack of time taken in that "pointless thought" that yields a faster game. > Of > course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt for > anybody. > This usually requires that the play on the board is approaching its > end > anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to play. With no > problems how > long time does it take to play these five tricks? Maybe ten > seconds. And how > long does it take to make a claim, show the cards and make opponents > convinced that the claim is OK? When "the claim is without doubt for anybody", it takes no time at all, and so saves "maybe ten seconds". > So how much time is saved on the normal, uncontested claim? Better question. It takes no time at all to "show the cards"; if it takes any time at all to "make opponents convinced that the claim is OK", then it is perforce not "without doubt for anybody". But Sven is right to suggest that most "normal, uncontested claim[s]" are of this kind, not immediately obvious to anyone but the claimer, and so taking up more than "no time at all". But the cases we need consider are only those, in which it would not be obvious to the defenders that declarer has the rest of the tricks unless he shows them to them. But if the defender doesn't know that declarer has the rest, and declarer plays on, cashing winners, it behooves the defender to take the time and exert the effort to visualize all of declarer's possible holdings, determine on which of those his choice of discard will matter to the outcome, weigh their relative probabilities, and ultimately decide on the right card to play. And to reanalyze and refine his conclusion with the added information supplied by each additional winner declarer plays. This can be very time-consuming indeed; we've all seen defenders tank interminably over declarer's running suit even when they're totally out of it and only their partner's play matters ("interminably" is *a whole lot longer* than "maybe ten seconds"). That can't be helped when their partner's play matters. But when declarer has the rest... Bridge is not a game of attritional psychology; ethical players do not try to win by deliberately exhausting an opponent's mental stamina and then taking advantage of having done so. It is unfair, unethical and improper to deliberately put your opponents "through the wringer" when you know that their play doesn't matter. As it happens, it's also explicitly illegal (L74B4). We claim not so much to save time as to be fair to the others at the table. Our lawmakers believe, as do I, that the consequent level of fairness achieved is worth dealing with the hassles resulting from the occasional contested claim, especially as contested claims represent only a relatively tiny fraction of all claims. > Then consider the result of encouraging claims whenever possible: > We need > firm, consistent rules on how to handle uncontested claims. Among > other > particulars these rules must be worded so that a tired or exhausted > player > cannot escape a difficult choice situation by just claiming and > have the > Director and/or an AC playing his hand for him. This is the main > reason why > the rules explicitly states that any doubt about choice shall be > resolved in > favour of the opponents. > > The infamous claim that has been object of the discussion between > HDW and me > happened with seven more tricks to play. How much time would have > been save > d if the Norwegian player instead of claiming had just played out > these last > seven tricks? Infamous cases are infamous precisely because they represent unusually rare or exceptional situations. The law must be designed to deal primarily with the common and ordinary, not optimized for the rare or exceptional. > My assertion is that claims are not to be encouraged except in the > very > exceptional and most trivial cases. Any claim that could cause > discussion > will as a general rule take more time that had the board been > played out in > the regular way. Let's not leap straight from "cause discussion" to "generate an unresolved disagreement that must be referred to an AC where it is adjudicated controversially, annotated with contradictory analyses by multiple experts, and argued about for years afterward". For a claimer to expect the former may be reasonable; to expect the latter would be, at best, a hell of a lot less so. The "object of the discussion between HDW and [Sven]" is precisely the sort of case we must disregard as an extreme outlier if we are to write rational laws. >> The old on-line law has worked well, in practice. It is simple, >> fair and encourages >> claims more than any interpretation of face-to-face law: >> - Declarer claims by exposing his hand and stating a number of >> tricks, with or >> without a detailed claim statement. >> - Defenders contest the claim by playing on. >> - In practice, in my experience, there's no hassle and directors >> aren't involved. In >> theory, however, the director has a vital role: If the director >> deems claimer to be >> "fishing" (eg to resolve a 2-way finesse) then he rules in favour >> of the fish and >> imposes a severe penalty on the angler. > > The main objection to this procedure is that contesting a claim > alerts the > claimer that his claim can be faulty. History has shown examples > where such > alerts have enabled the claimer to change his line of play and find a > winning one, often in direct (but difficult to prove) violation of > Law 16. Perhaps the on-line law works well on line. But when real players interact at a real live table, there is this thing called "table feel" that doesn't exist when your opponent is an electronic avatar on a screen. In the face-to-face world, Sven is 100% justified in claiming to have history on his side. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 2 23:24:26 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:24:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D60A.8050803@skynet.be><001201c984a6$2a884120$7f98c360$@no> <4986AC2A.9050807@skynet.be><001d01c98545$750a0b80$15844c59@chello.pl> <49871090.7090604@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005701c98585$02314de0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Bystry wrote: > >> Look Sven, you know the laws are not like that. > >> The law does _not_ say that the opponents get the benefit of _any_ line, > >> only of non-irrational ones. > >> You yourself give one exception - running a suit bottom-up. > >> I go just one exception further in what I call irrational. > > > > You're right, there are exceptions. But all of them are the plays which are > > really idiotic, > > Well, changing a word from "irrational" to "really idiotic" will not > help our discussion. I find playing trumps first equally "really > idiotic". OK? OK? No. You see, irrational is a very strong word. It's something no sane person would do. So the onus of proof is on you, not on us. You were told by many people in this list that they do not consider playing trumps first as irrational. Even if this opinion is overrepresented on BLML, still there is a great chance that in real life the percentage is high enough to exclude "irrational" interpretation. Something that even 15% of the players would do is *not* irrational. > and what's important, they result in totally different > > outcomes. Running suits from bottom usually leads to losing unnecessary > > tricks, the same goes for underruffing, not overruffing, not making 100% > > finesse, playing Queen (from AQ) under the King etc. These are all the plays > > that never win, rarely are even, usually are worse, much worse. But if a > > player has only sure winners, playing them in a random order neither wins > > nor loses - it is always even. So no order is irrational, all are rational. > > That is pure logic, Herman. > > > > No it's not, Maciej. Because your premise is wrong. The player has not > "only sure winners". He has "high cards" and "last trumps". Playing them > in that order is rational, in the other one is irrational. He does not > have "high spades", he has "last trumps". "Last trumps" are "high cards". To try to deny this logic is absurd for me. I'm disappointed, because despite our numerous disagreements I always thought that you're an intelligent and logical person. Now you're trying to defend something which is indefensible. Why? To give support to your EBL AC decision? Nobody wants to hang you for that, it happens (especially that you were only a scribe). To allow the faulty claimers to get their normal result? They do not deserve protection, they deserve a strong remainder, so that next time they will claim better. To stop the opponents from getting "undeserved" tricks? Sorry, but it is nearly impossible to win any tournament if your opponents don't make stupid mistakes. It's hard to say that you deserve those mistakes, they just happen and shouldn't be taken away just because a TD dreams of super-bridge and par scores on every board. > >> You cannot win this argument on the law text alone. I find it irrational > >> to play the trump from A-A-A-trump 2, you apparently don't find this > >> irrational, but there is nothing in the laws to tell us who is right here. > >> So stop trying to convince me that yours is the only possible correct > >> ruling, and stop criticizing me for believing that the line should be > >> drawn somewhat further. > > > > Imagine the man who is to choose one coin from four. Three of those coins > > are large, shining, with fine drawings, one is small, looks "dirty", but all > > of them have the same denomination. Would you find it irrational if the man > > chose that fourth coin? He just wants to pay with those coins, not to > > collect them. He prefers the small one because it takes less place in his > > wallet. For me it is fully rational, as is every other choice. > > > > Yet again, a faulty analogy. In our example, he does not have 4 coins of > the same denomination. He has 3 pieces of 2 EUROs with German Eagles on > them, and one with a San Marino castle. No need to collect them - the > San Marino one will be kept. I have no idea about Euro coins, Poland still has Zloty. But if San Marino coin is of 2 Euro denomination, then my example is good. Because 2 Euro = 2 Euro, just like (last) 2 of trumps = Ace of grapes. That is elementary logic and I won't waste my time to repeat this. > Analogies like this will not help us. They will, provided that you stop to be deliberately obstinate and deny everything that doesn't suit your beliefs. > > The situation is analogous to AAA2. All those cards are equal at the moment > > of the claim, all have the same "denomination". > > > > No, three are side suits, one is trumps. And so what? Trumps are special, agree, but not when *all* the remaining cards are high. Then trumps lose their role, they are merely winners, like side Aces, Kings, Queens, sevens, fives... > > You are constantly stating that for you playing 2 first would be irrational. > > But why? The only reason is a safety play. But apart from the fact that we > > don't allow the faulty claimers to make safety plays, that claimer has > > simply no reason to make a safety play. He is curtailing the play because he > > thinks all his cards are high. If he had any, even the smallest doubt he > > could issue a two-word phrase "trump last" or "Aces first". Not too much > > trouble, right? But he didn't. For him 2 of trumps was as much worth as a > > side Ace. Both were sure winners. For him playing 2 before A wasn't > > irrational, even if it was for somebody who was unsure whether his trump is > > really the last one. > > > > Well, I find it irrational to play the trump 2 first. > And nothing you say will change that impression. So try to prove it. Tell me, why is it irrational? What does it change? Herman, *the only* difference is when it appears that he forgot about the higher trump. Do you agree? If yes, then admit it - you want to make a safety play for the claimer, who doesn't think that any safety play is necessary. You're playing his cards to his benefit as a TD, and that is totally contrary to the letter of the law. > > The man choosing coins doesn't take a large one just in case his mind is > > deluded and the small one has a smaller denomination. He believes his sight > > and mind at the moment of the choice. Put those coins far away from the man, > > so that he couldn't be sure of the denomination of the smaller coin, and now > > it is possible he will make a safety choice (large one). > > > > The difference between being sure and not being sure usually has an impact > > on the decision. But the claimer *is sure* at the moment of his claim. > > That's something you are failing to understand. > > No, of course not. Which is why I don't allow him to play it "just to be > sure". But that way you're dividing faulty claimers into two categories: a) those who forgot about a small trump - they get the worst of it b) those who forgot about a high trump - they get the best of it So in fact you're saying - forgetting about a small trump is a crime which deserves a bad score, but forgetting about a high trump is not that bad, the player is lucky. That is totally contrary to the logic of bridge - forgetting about small trump (or any other small card) is possible and sometimes even happens to the top players. But forgetting about high cards (whether in trump suit or not) is extremely rare, even beginners usually remember Aces, Kings, Queens which were played during the board. I don't see any reason why should we treat both categories of claimers in the same way. > > In my opinion it derives > > from your own bad claiming habits (claiming because "it feels like ok", not > > because you are sure that you have the rest or any other number of tricks). > > Sorry, but claims should serve as time-and-effort-savers in *obvious* > > situations, not as lazy players' excuses not to play the cards and force the > > opponents (and the TDs) to establish the outcome of the deal. > > > > And what is the problem with that as long as the outcome is not higher > than any that can be achieved at the table? IMO (and I stress it is only > my opinion) not a single player will play the trumps first. The problem is that the defenders feel aggrieved. Because they have to analyze the deal instead of the declarer and because they see that it is possible to make a mistake. Even if the chance for a mistake is 10%, it is still the chance they lost. It's strange, but you seem not to understand bridge. Even the top players make stupid plays. Two of our Top 16 tournaments (some years ago) in a row, full of top players, were decided because of "banana squeeze (*)". I won many additional tricks similarly (even against pairs like Kowalski-Tuszynski). Please, let the players play their own cards. If they are 100% sure they have any number of tricks and want to claim - superb. If the outcome depends only on one thing, let them claim conditionally - no problem. But if they are unsure they shouldn't claim. If their mind wanders, they should get the worst of it. Claiming should not be used to avoid mistakes, it should be used to save time and unnecessary thinking. (*) Banana squeeze - pseudo squeeze, usually achieved by cashing the long suit and allowing the opponents to make bad discards > Herman. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 2 23:31:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:31:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> Message-ID: Edward Heath, British Prime Minister 1970-1974: "If politicians lived on praise and thanks they'd be forced into some other line of business." Sven Pran damns claims with faint praise: >This brings forward the old assertion that claiming speeds up the >game. Of course that can be true when the claim is without any doubt >for anybody. This usually requires that the play on the board is >approaching its end anyway, maybe less than five tricks are left to >play. Richard Hills quibbles: If one always waits as late as that to claim, one is not claiming enough. Just as the most frequent score that cricket batsmen get is a duck, so the most frequent trick I claim on is at trick one. (Of course, I avoid matchpoint pairs whenever possible, so I do not mind that an early claim may prevent me from gaining an unearned overtrick on a possible misdefence.) Sven Pran asked: >...So how much time is saved on the normal, uncontested claim?... >My assertion is that claims are not to be encouraged... Richard Hills quibbles: The cumulative effect of the time saved by my claims and Hashmat's claims is highly significant. While Hashmat's claims are tempestive, his bidding and play is veeery slooow, so our quick claims have allowed us to dodge zillions of slow play fines. Sven Pran asserted: >Any claim that could cause discussion will as a general rule take >more time that had the board been played out in the regular way. Richard Hills quibbles: Begging the question, petitio principii. That is not an argument for discouraging claims but instead an argument for encouraging "a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played", Law 68C. Jeff Easterson: >>As Richard says: what's the problem? JE 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 Feb 2 23:41:28 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:41:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><49872795.9010502@aol.com> <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <006d01c98587$636ae9c0$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Jeff Easterson] > A simple solution. Why not claim properly as specified in the laws? (Saying how you would play.) Almost all problems arise because this is not followed. (As in the case in question.) If correct procedure is not followed then any doubt should be decided against the player making the false (or incomplete) claim. That might encourage him to claim correctly next time and thus there would be no problem. As Richard says: what's the problem? JE > > [Nigel] > Richard contentiously asks "What's the problem?" about any half-baked solution :) > > I agree with Jeff that the director should insist on a proper claim. The *problem* with a law that insists on a comprehensive claim is that it *deters* claims. For example, some players find it hard to express themselves lucidly, especially in a foreign language. I see no problem. Faulty claims do not save time. And the language is certainly not an issue - you can say "claim" (everyone playing abroad should know this word) and show the cards in an order you want to play them. You can use phrases like "spades good", "you heart Ace" or similar. I just played a tournament today, I declared 9 times and 8 times I claimed, sometimes after only 3-4 tricks. *Every* time I issued a statement (like "drawing trumps", "you get something", "throwing grapes on kiwis"). Despite that I had no time problems, I usually ended the round long before the change. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 2 23:42:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:42:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: >Richard contentiously asks "What's the problem?" about any >half-baked solution :) >..... >For example, some players find it hard to express themselves >lucidly, especially in a foreign language. Richard Hills: Yes, my blml postings demonstrably suggest that English is a foreign language to me, so therefore this fact is unauthorised information to my readers (Law 16B1). What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 3 00:17:50 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:17:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49877F1E.1030904@talktalk.net> [Eric Landau] WARNING: The following message may appear to some to be "Herman-bashing". Nigel is, IMO, being quite unfair to Richard, Marvin, Sven and David. They have, in this thread, "suggest[ed] different interpretations of the law" in the normative sense, but none of them has ever said anything to suggest that they would ever, as TDs, act according to those interpretations rather than to what they understand to be generally accepted (albeit perhaps regretted) jurisprudential principles. I may strongly disagree with any of them, or they with one another, as to how claims should be adjudicated under our idiosyncratic versions of logical and ideal law, but I am confident that any rulings any of us might make under current law and jurisprudence would differ by a lot less than Nigel is prepared to assume. [Nige1] Don't kill the messenger. I respect the law-maker's intentions so I accept Sven's distinction between what people believe, ideally, and what they do, pragmatically. Disagreements about the latter among BLMLers seem real. Herman (and an EBL appeal committee with top legal advice) represent a view near one extreme. Sven represents a view near the other end of the spectrum. Inside and outside BLML, most share intermediate and subtly different opinions. IMO, their convictions differ enough to affect some of their rulings, *in practice*. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 01:35:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:35:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: Dylan Thomas (1914-1953): The hand that signed the treaty bred a fever, And famine grew, and locusts came; Great is the hand that holds dominion over Man by a scribbled name. What the scribe of the 2001 EBL AC actually scribbled: "It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." What was _not_ the 2001 EBL AC's reasoning: "It is the view of the Committee however that this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last." Herman De Wael asked: >OK, so tell me what "in a case like this" means. Richard Hills : The second and hypothetical statement, the one which was not made, would be the Appeals Committee's view of a general exception applying to the previous general rule (which previous general rule would then hypothetically only apply to notrump claims). The first and actual statement, the one which was made, merely states that this Appeals Committee believes that it should decide this particular case (and, if the identical Appeals Committee later reconvenes, what it thinks are cases "like this" -- an undefined term) on the basis of trumps last. Herman De Wael asserted: >So I believe that the AC decision is pertinent to the >question asked. Law 93B1: "The Director in charge shall hear and rule upon **such part of the appeal as deals solely with the Law**....." Law 93B3: "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, **except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law**....." Richard Hills: Since any and every Appeals Committee has zero power to interpret the Lawbook, it is a contradiction in terms for Herman De Wael to argue that an Appeals Committee decision is "pertinent" to creating a new interpretation of the Lawbook. Law 70E2 (first part): "The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'from the top down') in which the Director shall deem a suit played if this was not clarified in the statement of claim..." Herman De Wael: >And I think e.g. is a word just like "such as". Richard Hills: Correct. Herman De Wael asserted: >So this list, even only one item long, should not mean that >other things are excluded. Richard Hills: Grammatical error. Because the bracketed example "(e.g. 'from the top down')" is nested within a sentence, the example only applies to that sentence, which is about "a suit", _not_ about "several suits". So a Regulating Authority only has the power to specify an order of play for a single suit. If it wishes, the "e.g." in Law 70E2 permits the Regulating Authority to specify that a single suit is played "from the bottom up" or "from the middle". Law 70E2 (second part) "...(but always subject to any other requirement of this Law)." Richard Hills: So no matter what the Regulating Authority specifies, it can be overridden by other requirements of Law 70, most notably this provision of Law 70A (General Objective): "...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer..." What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 3 01:45:44 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 01:45:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau ................. > Bridge is not a game of attritional psychology; ethical players do > not try to win by deliberately exhausting an opponent's mental > stamina and then taking advantage of having done so. It is unfair, > unethical and improper to deliberately put your opponents "through > the wringer" when you know that their play doesn't matter. As it > happens, it's also explicitly illegal (L74B4 An assertion I cannot accept. Or how do you behave as RHO in the following situation: Early in the play a small spade is led towards K J in dummy and Declarer starts thinking. For the purpose of this question it doesn't matter whether the lead was from your partner or from declarer (your partner in case followed suit with a small spade); you hold A Q. Do you show your spades to declarer and tell him it doesn't matter which card he selects, or do you keep quiet until he has made up his mind without any "help" from you? I strongly resent (for more than one reason) any insinuation that you are supposed to show any of your cards to declarer in order to speed up his play. In fact, although not illegal I consider such attitude by a defender highly irregular. Incidentally I also consider it absolutely incorrect if I as the Director should be supposed to interrupt the play at a late table knowing that the result on the board no longer depends on what line of play they might select for their last tricks. Sven . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 02:18:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:18:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> Message-ID: Malcolm Forbes (1919-1990): "When in doubt, duck." David Burn asked a question: >The Laws are no better: "any doubtful points are resolved >against the claimer" - but what is a "doubtful point"? Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "have one's doubts - not be satisfied of the truth or wisdom of something" 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 Feb 3 02:24:49 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 01:24:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <006d01c98587$636ae9c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><49872795.9010502@aol.com> <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net> <006d01c98587$636ae9c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49879CE1.7030709@talktalk.net> [Bystry] I see no problem. Faulty claims do not save time. And the language is certainly not an issue - you can say "claim" (everyone playing abroad should know this word) and show the cards in an order you want to play them. [Nige1] Under current *face-to-face* law, Sven Pran also recommends that you claim by peeling off your cards, in the order that you intend to play them. I agree that you should try to follow his sensible advice -- assuming that such a claim does not break the law :) Sometimes, it can be difficult to follow this protocol - When dummy has significant cards. - Or when opponents have outstanding winners and they can choose when to take them. - Also it may be hard to cater for contingencies for example when you claim on a coup, squeeze, throw-in or safety-play. - Against bolshy opponents I suppose that you might take Sven's advice and save time by by *not* claiming. But is that breaking the law too? :) In any case, the *on-line* protocol of exposing your hand, claiming a number of tricks, and (optionally) specifying a line of play is faster and less error-prone. Even disputed claims are faster. When opponents dispute a claim, they play double-dummy and that tends to be easier and quicker. Claims are encouraged because both sides are saved hassle. A win-win for players :) Why do directors dislike the proposal ? :) . From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 02:46:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:46:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] Slooow plaaay [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Mark Twain (1835-1910): "Never put off until tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow." In the "Claim Law" thread, Eric Landau referred to Law 74B4: "As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent." Sven Pran quibbled: >An assertion I cannot accept. > >Or how do you behave as RHO in the following situation: > >Early in the play a small spade is led towards K J in dummy and >Declarer starts thinking. For the purpose of this question it >doesn't matter whether the lead was from your partner or from >declarer (your partner in case followed suit with a small spade); >you hold A Q. > >Do you show your spades to declarer and tell him it doesn't matter >which card he selects, or do you keep quiet until he has made up >his mind without any "help" from you? Law 68, prologue and footnote: "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress*. * If the statement or action pertains only to the winning or losing of an uncompleted trick currently in progress, play proceeds regularly; cards exposed or revealed by a defender do not become penalty cards, but Law 16, Unauthorized Information, may apply, and see Law 57A, Premature Play." Richard Hills counter-quibbles: Since the Law 68 footnote states that it is legal for a defender to make a statement about the current uncompleted trick, and since Law 74B4 (not to mention Law 74A2) says such a statement is sometimes mandatory, then Yes, in the scenario posed by Sven I do indeed put declarer out of her misery. Sven Pran asserted: [snip] >Incidentally I also consider it absolutely incorrect if I as the >Director should be supposed to interrupt the play at a late table >knowing that the result on the board no longer depends on what >line of play they might select for their last tricks. Law 90B2 "The following are examples of offences subject to procedural penalty (but the offences are not limited to these): unduly slow play by a contestant." Law 82B2: "To rectify an error in procedure the Director may: require, postpone, or ***cancel*** the play of a board." 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 Feb 3 03:47:49 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:47:49 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4987B055.8040207@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] If you allowed play to continue, would the contesting of the claim be UI to declarer? It would seem to be VERY useful information. [Nige1] Yes but cases of using such UI are likely to be so blatant that they are easily diagnosed. For example declarer claims with AKQJ987 opposite the singleton 6 in dummy. RHO with Txxxx disputes the claim. Without legal evidence, declarer successfully finesses the ten. The diirecor denies the claim and penalizes declarer. Declarer's claim is *authorised* information to defenders, however. This creates a *lose-lose* predicament for the faulty-claimer, who tries to profit from UI. For example, with a similar holding, declarer claims, an opponent objects, and declarer cunningly finesses. LHO wins his doubleton ten; but the devious declarer has only himself to blame; and the law denies him solace :) It follows that such cases are so rare on-line that I haven't met one, so far. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 3 04:18:33 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:18:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <0D59B4B52E4B4EFDA267746B6F82697B@JOHN> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <0D59B4B52E4B4EFDA267746B6F82697B@JOHN> Message-ID: <200902030318.n133IbsR027703@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:47 AM 3/02/2009, you wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:54 AM >Subject: Re: [blml] a question > > > >I disagree with both answers so far. > > It seems to me that there should be a rule for this. > > I propose the rule "suits are cashed in any order, except trumps, which > > are held till last". > > I award only one trick, and I have done so all my career, without > > objections by the players who are getting only one trick in stead of the > > two that they could get. > > It feels more "normal" to me and to a lot of players. > > Maybe you should ask a number of players what they would consider > > "fair". Would they be happy with one trick if you tell them that is the > > rule? Would they object to that rule? > > > > Herman. > >count me with Sven, Herman. 2 tricks. John > If I were the declarer making such a stupid and faulty claim, the director doesn't even need to be called. I would immediately give defender the max. If the director is called, declarer is hoping for someone like Herman to come to the table and give him a trick. Dont try that with me! Cheers, Tony (Sydney) > > > > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. > >> Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a > >> high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > >> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > >> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > >> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > >> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. > >> > >> In my opinion (and this seems to be a minority view) the defender gets > >> both of the last tricks. > >> > >> Explanation for my decision: (1) if declarer claims he should do it > >> according to the rules, that is say how he will play. He hasn't done > >> that. (2) his statement (that he "believes there are no more trumps > >> out" seems to me to be irrelevant. If he is unsure he should not claim, > >> or claim properly. (3) If he believes both of his cards are high (as he > >> apparently does) I see no reason why he should play the high heart > >> first. Thus I decide (as TD) that he plays the trump first. > >> > >> Okay, until now I seem to be the only person giving the defender 2 > >> tricks (but it is only a small sample until now). What are the opinions > >> of blmlers concerning this basically simple case? Ciao, JE > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> blml mailing list > >> blml at amsterdamned.org > >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 04:19:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:19:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael, attempt at a rhetorical question: >Do you agree that the EBL has the right to say "we believe it >is irrational to cash trumps before last"? Richard Hills, attempt at a legal answer: No. As explained by other blmlers, no Regulating Authority has such a de jure power (although Eric Landau cynically notes that at least one Regulating Authority exercises de facto unlimited power). Because of expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- that is the exclusive and express power to alter Law 70E2 -- Regulating Authorities lack the de jure power to alter any other parts of Law 70. Herman De Wael, aaarq: >Do you agree that they did say so? Richard Hills, aaala: No. Only the Regulating Authority (not an Appeals Committee) may speak for the EBL; see Law 80A. Herman De Wael, aaarq: >Do you agree that this saying, if it has the power of >precedent, has kept such power after 2007? Richard Hills, aaala: Have you stopped beating your wife? Zero and zilch Appeals Committees may set a binding precedent in Law; see Law 93B. Herman De Wael, attempt at ironical humour: >All of which does not help you, of course, in sunny Oz-land, >sadly not affiliated to the EBL. Richard Hills, aaih: All of which does not help you, of course, in snowy Belgium, sadly not filial to the 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 darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 3 05:07:50 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 05:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><49872795.9010502@aol.com> <49873AA3.5090906@talktalk.net><006d01c98587$636ae9c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <49879CE1.7030709@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <003401c985b4$fafd94e0$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Bystry] > I see no problem. Faulty claims do not save time. And the language is > certainly not an issue - you can say "claim" (everyone playing abroad > should know this word) and show the cards in an order you want to play them. > > [Nige1] > Under current *face-to-face* law, Sven Pran also recommends that you > claim by peeling off your cards, in the order that you intend to play > them. I agree that you should try to follow his sensible advice -- > assuming that such a claim does not break the law :) And why should it break the law? Do you think that mute players cannot play bridge? > Sometimes, it can be difficult to follow this protocol > - When dummy has significant cards. And? You're showing e.g. your three good grapes, three good kiwis in dummy and point out the losing mango to the opponents. WTP? > - Or when opponents have outstanding winners and they can choose when to > take them. If the moment in which the opponents take their trick(s) may have an impact on the outcome of the deal, it is certainly not correct to claim. If it may not, then they won't object, ne c'est pas? > - Also it may be hard to cater for contingencies for example when you > claim on a coup, squeeze, throw-in or safety-play. If you wish to claim on a complex play, then it is better to make a clear statement. So people with language troubles won't claim on complex plays. Anyway, I'd prefer to disallow such claims completely. If you want to make a throw-in - just play that damned card, let the opponent win the trick and *then* show your cards. He'll fold. > - Against bolshy opponents I suppose that you might take Sven's advice > and save time by by *not* claiming. But is that breaking the law too? :) As far as I know it is not illegal not to claim. It is illegal to prolong play unnecessarily in order to force the opponents to think without a reason. So for a novice it is ok not to claim (he is afraid of claims), but for an expert it isn't (I'm writing about clear situations, in other cases it is never illegal to continue play). Additionally not claiming may endanger you with time troubles. But I think this discussion is pointless. We certainly agree in the case of correct claims, whether made in a first trick or tenth, whether conditional or simple. I'm arguing against careless claims and claims without a statement. I abhor players claiming in such a way - "It feels like I have x tricks, so I'll claim. I'm too lazy to continue play.". 8/10 all is ok, the suits split favourably and the claim appears correct. But in remaining 2/10 something is faulty and now we have a mess - huge waste of time, unnecessary emotions, TD at the table, deciding whether the claimer knew about possible bad breaks, whether he would notice those bad breaks, when would he concede a trick to the opponents etc. It is really better to play 1-2 tricks more, especially that it is usually simple cashing which poses no problems to the opponents (they just follow the suit with small cards). > In any case, the *on-line* protocol of exposing your hand, claiming a > number of tricks, and (optionally) specifying a line of play is > faster and less error-prone. Even disputed claims are faster. When > opponents dispute a claim, they play double-dummy and that tends to be > easier and quicker. Claims are encouraged because both sides are saved > hassle. A win-win for players :) Why do directors dislike the proposal ? :) I have different experience. I play on BBO and it is all fine as long as I'm playing against experts (real ones, not "BBO experts"). They claim correctly, they accept correct claims, no problem. But unfortunately sometimes I play tournaments and there encounter players who won't accept even the most obvious claim. You cannot imagine how furious I am when I have to play 7 tricks one by one although all is completely clear. Faulty claims are rarer and seldom cause a problem, here I agree. But there are some cheats who try to gain something by deliberate misclaims. I saw the player (kibitzing) who claimed on AKJx to xxx and after an objection played AK (catching Qx behind). It was an ordinary table, not a tournament, so no TD. All right, he'll get blacklisted by many opponents, maybe thrown out from BBO after some such shenanigans, the defenders may counterattack with objection with Queen in front of AKJ, I would do so. But for me it is not an improvement comparing to F2F claim laws. It works with some troubles, just like in F2F. In my opinion better way to repair claim laws is to throw out "normal", "doubt", "equitable" and similar expressions and introduce simple mechanical rules. Then "irrational" safeguard with clarifing examples (to avoid imposing really idiotic plays on a player) and it should work. Yes, there still will be some borderline cases, but much less. Only David's harshest version could cope with that, but it is too harsh to be accepted at the lower levels (I wouldn't mind to see it on championship level). Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 06:58:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:58:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003a01c98547$0d2e9a60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Mark Twain (1835-1910), enthymeme: "There is no law against composing music when one has no ideas whatsoever. The music of Wagner, therefore, is perfectly legal." Richard Hills, expressio unius est exclusio alterius: >>>Note that the following hypothetical sentence was excluded from any >>>express mention in the new 2007 Law 70E2: >>> >>>"The Regulating Authority may specify an order (e.g. 'trumps last') >>>in which the Director shall deem different suits played if this was >>>not clarified in the statement of claim (but always subject to any >>>other requirement of this Law)." Herman De Wael, enthymeme: >>OK, that was not mentioned. >>But neither was there mention that the RA does not have the right to >>specify such an order. Maciej Bystry, expressio unius est exlusio alterius: >Neither there is any mention in Law 1 that the RA does not have the >right to specify that 2 beats an Ace. Sorry, the laws (especially >since 2007) explicitly state which parts of it may be regulated by RAs. * * * Let's do the timewarp again. Agreeing with Maciej's caveat "especially since 2007" was -> Grattan Endicott (15th July 2005), personal opinion about expressio unius est exclusio alterius: .....My personal bottom line is that the laws should not brook of alternative interpretations, as for example has happened with the 1997 Laws in some areas, between the interpretation in the ACBL and that in the EBL for example. If practices are to differ it should be authorized by options in the Laws..... 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 bridgeinindia at gmail.com Mon Feb 2 19:00:08 2009 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (bridgeinindia) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 23:30:08 +0530 Subject: [blml] Director ruling requested. Message-ID: *Hi Jackie Dawson Altschuler, * *I am Dr Raghavan.P.S from Chennai city in Tamil Nadu state of India.* *We have a website without any advts only for Bridge for the past 8 years. We try to cover all major tourneys of Bridge world like Bermuda, venice, EBU, NABC, Australian Nationals etc.* *View the site > http://bridgeinindia.homestead.com/bridgeinIndiawelcometext.html * ** *We want to know, how, as a director, you would have dealt with the problem , given as attachment? * *We, as website editor, are asked to get senior directors' opinion on this.* *Kindly excuse us if we are disturbing you. * *With Regards Dr Raghavan.P.S. Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph = 9940273749* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090202/f22a1277/attachment-0002.htm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090202/f22a1277/attachment-0003.htm From craigstamps at comcast.net Mon Feb 2 23:03:08 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 17:03:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] Returning from involuntary lurk Message-ID: <006e01c98582$081d4b30$1a2d2544@craigjkd4vrl7u> Hello everyone. I hope this makes it to the list. I think I finally have the problem fixed...my posts have been bouncing for over a year. By the way I award 2 tricks on the claim problem and can't see why anyone would no do so...we have to assume in the absence of statement that claimer believes all tricks are good so might be as likely to play one card as another and rule any uncertainty against the bad claim. Unless ACBL has changed its stripes, that's how I was trained when certified. And as those of you who know me know, I am a strong proponent of encouraging claims whenever possible. Craig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090202/29f2fa5f/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 07:19:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:19:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <724A2CE0-7FA3-46F0-8CA9-28586E55AF31@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: >We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate >doubtful points not covered by the claim statement, but we >accept irrational lines of play if they are explicitly >specified (leaving nothing to adjudicate). And losing the >king in a twelve-card fit is irrational, isn't it? WTP? Richard Hills quibbles: What's the problem? The problem is that Eric and many other blmlers are using the 1997 word "irrational", which word has been erased from the 2007 footnote defining "normal". [Although "irrational" still lurks in Law 70E1.] And, as Robert Frick has noted, even an explicitly specified concession of an offside king in a twelve-card fit might be deemed to be not "normal", so therefore a player would not necessarily be held to such an explicitly specified concession. Law 71(2): A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:16:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:16:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000001c98551$615cb2c0$24161840$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> <000001c98551$615cb2c0$24161840$@no> Message-ID: <4987FD6F.4030603@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > You discuss the wrong question: > > What you apparently assert that players usually do is immaterial and > irrelevant. > Well, if you are going to call my arguments irrelevant, there's nothing much more that can be said, is there? > The relevant question is if it is "irrational" for a player who "knows" that > all his remaining cards (including trumps) are unconditional winners, to > cash his winning trumps first and then continue with his other winners. > Please remember that the word "irrational" has disappeared from the definition of "normal". > We all agree that it is "irrational" to play the Queen from AQ under a King, > to underruff instead of overruff when possible, or to play a running suit > bottom up instead of top down if that costs the loss of trick(s). > OK, we agree about that, so? > But it appears to me that "we" (i.e. every contributor to this thread except > HDW) all agree there is nothing "irrational" for a player who "knows" that > all his cards are winners if he first cashes his winning trumps and then > continues with cashing his tricks in the other suits. > Your argument boils down to : since we can agree on some cases, those that we can't agree on must be like we say it. > IMO you will need to show some cause for considering this to be > "irrational". (I for one don't even consider it "careless" but simply just > one among several normal lines of play.) > Well, there are many reasons why people don't do it. The main one is uncertainty. In our formative years, we have learnt to be careful with our trumps, and not play them more than needed. So even when we are certain, we don't play them. Of course the situation never arises in real life, because we claim when we are certain. So after such a claim, it is impossible for the director to rule "how the play would have gone", because the play never goes on. But this principle, of being careful with trumps, just in case, remains IMO. You cannot deal with this by using the word "irrational". In this situation, it is irrational not to claim. So it is irrational to cash any suit. The side suits as well. Herman. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:18:16 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:18:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49876685.6010604@consolidated.net> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <49870174.9050609@ulb.ac.be> <49870CA6.5000606@skynet.be> <49876685.6010604@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <4987FDC8.9050509@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: > > I'm having trouble understanding Herman's position. In the original > example, as I understand it, declarer made a faulty claim for the last 2 > tricks. Had he not claimed, he would have taken 0 or 1 tricks, depending > on whether he led his last trump or not. Now Herman wants to award him > one of the last 2 tricks...the best of all worlds he would have achieved > had he not claimed. > > I fail to see how a faulty claim should be permitted to leave declarer > no worse of than had he not claimed at all. > That might be because I've been talking about another case since. I don't remember Jeff's original now, but I can assure you that it's a discussion between one trick and two to the defence. I will never give both tricks to declarer. > --Bob Park > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:29:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:29:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > So here I am, with what I believe to be winners in more than one suit > and a set of trumps that I believe are the only ones left. > > I do not claim. I simply pull cards from my hand at random, and play > them in the order they come out. > But that is exactly what I am saying is irrational. What I am saying is that it is rational for you to make two heaps, one of high cards, and one of last trumps, and to randomly draw one of the side suit cards. of course if you are going to translate your irrational actions into some other set of actions and then call them rational, you are going to have arguments that seem fine - but this argument is flawed for the same reason as all those before. Trumps are not side suits, and it is not rational to treat them the same! > The first card that comes out just happens to be a high trump, and > when I play it, lo and behold, an unexpected small trump appears from > an opponent. I continue to play my cards at random, and take the all > the tricks. Lucky me. > > I would challenge Herman to explain to me how I have misplayed the > hand. What specific error did I make that constituted a patently > inferior play? > Take this one: you have failed to guard against an enormous miscount. Even when you are certain, you know that you have been wrong before. Let's put it like this: You are holding nothing but high hearts and diamonds, and spades (trumps) that you believe to be last. You want to claim, but you are playing against notoriously angry opponents, so you don't. You know you have been distracted somewhere along the line, and so one of your three "thoughts" might be wrong: there might be trumps out, or there might be hearts or diamonds not high. (See that I had to describe these differently - trumps and side suits are not the same!) You don't know which might happen, but a small thought will make it clear that if you lose the lead through playing your trumps from both sides, they will cash clubs and you'll be lots down. Do you agree that it's irrational to play the trumps first? If your (supposedly last) trump loses because you play it, you have lost the lead and possibly some more tricks. But if your (supposedly last) trump is not the last and they ruff one of your high cards - you can get in with your trump and not a lot is lost. It is clear to see that cashing last trumps is irrational. But I don't want to continue this discussion - because I want to have a uniform set of rules, which deals with this case. I want the WBF to pronounce itself, and all the director's noses be turned in the same direction - so this discussion need not be repeated! > It cannot possibly make any sense whatsoever to assert that I have > played the hand "irrationally" without having committed any > demonstrable error or misplay. > Well, have I demonstrated it? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > Herman. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:35:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:35:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49872A09.80002@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> Message-ID: <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Herman! You say "when playing it out". Of course, that is the aim of the claim law - to decide what would happen if it were played out. True, claimer gets the worst of all possible results - but only of normal ones. Our discussion is about what is normal. > That is the problem, by > making a "false" or "specious" or incomplete" claim the claimer did not > "play it out". He felt it wasn't necessary to play it out so he > claimed. (But it is surely not kosher to claim and say "I BELIEVE there > are no more trumps out". If he is in doubt he shouldn't claim.) Since > we don't know what the claimer was thinking (due to his odd way of > claiming) we don't know what he proposed to play next: the trump or the > other card. Either is possible since he didn't bother to tell us. But that is just the problem - is either possible. Is it "normal" for him to play the small trumps from both sides of the table? I don't consider it normal, and you were not certain either, or you would not have posed the question on blml. > Thus > I agree with all of the others who say he must play the less favourable > card for his side. If that is what they are saying, they would be wrong - but they are not saying that. They are saying (as I am) that he must play the less favourable "normal" card for his side. And we disagree on which of the cards are normal and which aren't. > To his way of reasoning there is no less favourable > card since he seems to believe all are good. Yes, but that is only one way of saying it. I say that he believes some are high, and the trumps are last. > Two corollaries for me: > when there is doubt I tend to decide against the player who caused the > problem (by not following proper procedure), and in this (and similar) > cases: the card played is the one which is best for the opponents. This > is not a case of a possible irrational play (such as playing small from > each hand with A2 and K3). Ciao, JE > If you are that certain, why did you pose the problem on blml? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:36:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:36:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <200902030318.n133IbsR027703@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <0D59B4B52E4B4EFDA267746B6F82697B@JOHN> <200902030318.n133IbsR027703@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <4988020A.8080401@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: >> > > If I were the declarer making such a stupid and faulty claim, the > director doesn't even need to be called. I would immediately give > defender the max. > If the director is called, declarer is hoping for someone like Herman to > come to the table and give him a trick. Dont try that with me! > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > The masochistic argument - yet again. Sometimes, players call the director not to gain something but because L9 tells them to do so. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:43:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:43:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49872795.9010502@aol.com> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <49872795.9010502@aol.com> Message-ID: <498803A3.6070404@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > A simple solution. Why not claim properly as specified in the laws? > (Saying how you would play.) Almost all problems arise because this is > not followed. (As in the case in question.) If correct procedure is > not followed then any doubt should be decided against the player making > the false (or incomplete) claim. That might encourage him to claim > correctly next time and thus there would be no problem. > As Richard says: what's the problem? JE > Because that is not what claims statements are about. Claims statements are about what you know of the hand. "my hand is high, except for those three clubs that I can ruff in dummy". You do not say "I ruff a club, come to hand with spades, ruff a club, ..." Also, many claims, like the one in Tenerife, occur when defender is on lead. Then it is impossible to say. "If you play ..." because that takes longer than showing your hand and seeing opponent agree with it. Furthermore, Jeff, saying that there would be no more problems if everyone claimed correctly does not help us one iota. We know not everyone will claim correctly. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:49:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:49:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49880507.5060508@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > WARNING: The following message may appear to some to be "Herman- > bashing". > Yes, it is Herman-bashing. Of a very special kind - not one I mind, but one which is particularly strong in some people. > > Nigel is, IMO, being quite unfair to Richard, Marvin, Sven and > David. They have, in this thread, "suggest[ed] different > interpretations of the law" in the normative sense, but none of them > has ever said anything to suggest that they would ever, as TDs, act > according to those interpretations rather than to what they > understand to be generally accepted (albeit perhaps regretted) > jurisprudential principles. What Eric is saying here, is that Richard et.al. would rule as they believe the laws to be. Or rather, that Richard et.al. would rule as Eric believes the laws to be. Eric is apparently saying that I would not rule as I believe the laws to be. But of course I do rule as I believe the laws to be. I just don't think Richard et.al., and Eric, are right in what they believe the laws to be. So what Eric is saying is that Herman is wrong because he disagrees with Eric. And that is Herman-bashing of the most insidious kind. We are right, and Herman is Herman, so Herman is wrong. Herman. > I may strongly disagree with any of > them, or they with one another, as to how claims should be > adjudicated under our idiosyncratic versions of logical and ideal > law, but I am confident that any rulings any of us might make under > current law and jurisprudence would differ by a lot less than Nigel > is prepared to assume. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 09:52:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 09:52:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expressio unius est exclusio alterius In-Reply-To: References: <4986B06F.8050502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498805B9.5030107@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Herman has taken a vast and unjustified leap from "a specific AC > adjudicating a specific case at an EBL-sanctioned tournament said so" > to "the EBL has said so" Sorry, but tournament ACs, however > impressive their membership (or their scribe) may be, do not speak > for the RA. If individual cases from individual ACs set definitive > precedents, we would hardly ever get to make any ruling on anything, > as we would continually find ourselves paralyzed by contradictory > definitive precedents. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > Eric, you live in a country where Lawyers gain huge amounts of money from doing just that - finding precedents. There is no difference between the EBL tournament AC and the EBL standing AC. Precedents are what they are - precedents. To learn from. Herman. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 3 12:23:10 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 11:23:10 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> Message-ID: <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] Early in the play a small spade is led towards K J in dummy and Declarer starts thinking. For the purpose of this question it doesn't matter whether the lead was from your partner or from declarer (your partner in case followed suit with a small spade); you hold A Q. Do you show your spades to declarer and tell him it doesn't matter which card he selects, or do you keep quiet until he has made up his mind without any "help" from you? I strongly resent (for more than one reason) any insinuation that you are supposed to show any of your cards to declarer in order to speed up his play. In fact, although not illegal I consider such attitude by a defender highly irregular [Nigel] If, as defender, know that partner's hand to be irrelevant, you can make a *proper* claim, covering the remaining tricks and terminating the play, then the law says you should do so. Otherwise, however, I agree with Sven Pran and disagree with Richard Hills. One problem with a *partial* "claim" by defender, as in Sven's example, is that it provides gratuitous unauthorised information to partner. Hence, after all, perhaps Sven is wrong and it is *illegal* I disagree with Sven about *proper* claims. IMO - Claims usually save time and unnecessary hassle. - The law requires you to make a proper claim if you can. - It is not the fault of law-makers that a few difficult opponents resent such claims. - But it is the fault of law-makers that claim-law is unclear to directors and claiming is hard for players. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 3 14:05:45 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:05:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><49872795.9010502@aol.com> <498803A3.6070404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <004101c98600$20f949a0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > A simple solution. Why not claim properly as specified in the laws? > > (Saying how you would play.) Almost all problems arise because this is > > not followed. (As in the case in question.) If correct procedure is > > not followed then any doubt should be decided against the player making > > the false (or incomplete) claim. That might encourage him to claim > > correctly next time and thus there would be no problem. > > As Richard says: what's the problem? JE > > > > Because that is not what claims statements are about. Claims statements > are about what you know of the hand. "my hand is high, except for those > three clubs that I can ruff in dummy". You do not say "I ruff a club, > come to hand with spades, ruff a club, ..." Brrr. [L68] C. Clarification Required for Claim A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to the *order in which cards will be played*, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. [/L68] By the way, in my opinion it would be better if "should" was changed for "must". > Also, many claims, like the one in Tenerife, occur when defender is on > lead. Then it is impossible to say. "If you play ..." because that takes > longer than showing your hand and seeing opponent agree with it. Maybe it takes longer, but if there are still different possible lines of play, it is necessary. If not, then you may say "whatever you will play I'll take it, draw x trumps, rest is good". Or "you may take your grape now or later, I'll draw x trumps, rest is good". Again, claims should be made in obvious positions, not when there still are decisions to be made. > Furthermore, Jeff, saying that there would be no more problems if > everyone claimed correctly does not help us one iota. We know not > everyone will claim correctly. I suppose Jeff knows that. He just wanted to say that we should strongly encourage the players to make correct claim statements. Errors will still happen (I'm claiming quite well, but nevertheless I was wrong in the past, once I even forgot a high card in a side suit, although I was lucky thanks to making a statement, so I lost only one trick), but they will be rarer and rarer as long as we consequently rule against the claimers. > Herman. Regards Maciej From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 3 14:09:28 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:09:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> Those who argue in favor of (more) claims with reference to Law 74B4 probably overlooks that what a player should refrain from is not unnecessarily playing on as such; it is unnecessarily playing on *** for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent *** Quote from Law 74B: As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: ............. 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent. So in order to criticize a player that did not claim although (in your opinion) he could have done so you must establish not only that the position justified a claim, but that his PURPOSE of playing on rather than claiming was to disconcert an opponent. (A possible fact that an opponent claims having been disconcerted is definitely not sufficient). I have no objection against claims in general, but I have strong objections against doubtful claims being resolved in a way that discards possible errors the claiming player COULD have made had he played on instead of claiming. If I were to write new and simpler claim laws I would have gone back to the original principles: "To the extent that the claimer has not specified the exact card to be played the actual card to be played shall be determined by his opponents." Such a rule will have absolutely no impact on "correct" claims, but it will effectively discourage questionable or doubtful claims and as such will work to improve the standards in bridge play. Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 3 14:10:40 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:10:40 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49884250.6010601@aol.com> Hola Herman! I don't want to insult you but I suspect that you have taken an untenable position and don't want to admit it. To (some of) the points below: Declarer has two cards, one is a trump, one is not. He believes both of them are high. I (and almost all of the others) do not see why it would be irrational or not normal to play either of them. If you really believe in this position it would anormal to play the trump first, so be it; that is, you claim, your belief. No one else seems to share it and a few have asked if you are serious (private emails to me). I wonder myself. Small trumps from both sides of the table? There are no both sides of the table in the case I posed. He has 2 cards and must play one of them. Are you trying to confuse matters by suddenly introducing an irrelevant "both sides of the table"? I posed the question (presented the case) on blml because it came up in Germany and there was some disagreement as to proper procedure. An inexperienced club td awarded only one trick. In the interim I have about 30 or 40 responses. You are, until now, the only (almost the only one? I may have missed something and a few did not say, discussed other aspects) one who does not give two tricks. But the vast majority have said they consider it normal to play either of the two remaining cards. You may respond if you wish but I am not going to continue this discussion with you. You seem to take pleasure in taking controverse positions and then arguing about them for years and years. That probably has more to do with psychology, personal characteristics than with bridge. Ciao, with friendly greetings, hope to see you soon, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola Herman! You say "when playing it out". > > Of course, that is the aim of the claim law - to decide what would > happen if it were played out. True, claimer gets the worst of all > possible results - but only of normal ones. Our discussion is about what > is normal. > >> That is the problem, by >> making a "false" or "specious" or incomplete" claim the claimer did not >> "play it out". He felt it wasn't necessary to play it out so he >> claimed. (But it is surely not kosher to claim and say "I BELIEVE there >> are no more trumps out". If he is in doubt he shouldn't claim.) Since >> we don't know what the claimer was thinking (due to his odd way of >> claiming) we don't know what he proposed to play next: the trump or the >> other card. Either is possible since he didn't bother to tell us. > > But that is just the problem - is either possible. Is it "normal" for > him to play the small trumps from both sides of the table? I don't > consider it normal, and you were not certain either, or you would not > have posed the question on blml. > >> Thus >> I agree with all of the others who say he must play the less favourable >> card for his side. > > If that is what they are saying, they would be wrong - but they are not > saying that. They are saying (as I am) that he must play the less > favourable "normal" card for his side. And we disagree on which of the > cards are normal and which aren't. > >> To his way of reasoning there is no less favourable >> card since he seems to believe all are good. > > Yes, but that is only one way of saying it. I say that he believes some > are high, and the trumps are last. > >> Two corollaries for me: >> when there is doubt I tend to decide against the player who caused the >> problem (by not following proper procedure), and in this (and similar) >> cases: the card played is the one which is best for the opponents. This >> is not a case of a possible irrational play (such as playing small from >> each hand with A2 and K3). Ciao, JE >> > > If you are that certain, why did you pose the problem on blml? > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 3 14:22:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 08:22:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <4987B055.8040207@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> <4987B055.8040207@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 21:47:49 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > If you allowed play to continue, would the contesting of the claim be UI > to declarer? It would seem to be VERY useful information. > > [Nige1] > Yes but cases of using such UI are likely to be so blatant that they are > easily diagnosed. For example declarer claims with AKQJ987 opposite the > singleton 6 in dummy. RHO with Txxxx disputes the claim. Without legal > evidence, declarer successfully finesses the ten. The diirecor denies > the claim and penalizes declarer. > > Declarer's claim is *authorised* information to defenders, however. This > creates a *lose-lose* predicament for the faulty-claimer, who tries to > profit from UI. For example, with a similar holding, declarer claims, an > opponent objects, and declarer cunningly finesses. LHO wins his > doubleton ten; but the devious declarer has only himself to blame; and > the law denies him solace :) > > It follows that such cases are so rare on-line that I haven't met one, > so far. Hi Nigel. What about if I claim to have all of the tricks, someone disputes the claim, and that gives me the idea that a trump might be out that I forgot about? What if I claim, someone disputes the claim, and that gives me the idea that I have miscounted my winners? I check and I have. These are the worry of the people who wrote the claim laws. I assume. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 3 14:27:54 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:27:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> > Eric Landau asserted: > > >We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate > >doubtful points not covered by the claim statement, but we > >accept irrational lines of play if they are explicitly > >specified (leaving nothing to adjudicate). And losing the > >king in a twelve-card fit is irrational, isn't it? WTP? > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > What's the problem? The problem is that Eric and many other > blmlers are using the 1997 word "irrational", which word has > been erased from the 2007 footnote defining "normal". > > [Although "irrational" still lurks in Law 70E1.] True, formally we should use "not normal", but that is just meaningless. I was shocked after 2007 revision, because instead of removing "normal" (completely different from dictionary meaning of this word) from the text, the lawmakers removed irrational, which at least was used close to its dictionary meaning. For some doves it may mean that the claim laws are now milder for faulty claimers. Heh, I wouldn't be surprised if exactly that was the intention :-( > And, as Robert Frick has noted, even an explicitly specified > concession of an offside king in a twelve-card fit might be > deemed to be not "normal", so therefore a player would not > necessarily be held to such an explicitly specified > concession. > > Law 71(2): > > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director > shall cancel a concession: > if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by > any normal* play of the remaining cards. > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play > that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved. Unfortunately true. For me it is silly. Worse than that, idiotic. The claimer's mind wanders and he wants to concede a trick to the King despite having 12 card in a suit. If he was forced to play it out, he could play an Ace or small, both possibilities are likely. But if he claims instead, he can come back to his senses after the round and get his trick back. Outrageous. Where is the compensation for all that players who make normal mistakes during the play? I just hope that most TDs would decide that playing low was "normal" for that claimer in his state of mind. > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 14:57:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 08:57:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: <4A52A096-FBB4-460F-B4DE-A9C4BA1DC786@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 2:35 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:57:41 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Marvin L French wrote: >> >>> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite >>> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal >>> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good >>> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But >>> there was no "original clarification statement." >> >> That's just silly. Sure, "any" can be one of the more ambiguous >> words in the English language. Amedican Heritage gives both "one, no >> matter which, from three or more" and "every" as valid definitions. >> Is anyone other than Marvin in serious doubt as to which the authors >> of the law intended? > > Can you paraphrase the law to capture what the author's intended? > Or would > you like me to try? I don't see the need. Unless one stretches the language to the point of absurdity, it is perfectly clear. I could, of course, construct a paraphrase at any time. That doesn't mean at noon tomorrow or at 7 AM on Thursday. It means at any time. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 15:17:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:17:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <724A2CE0-7FA3-46F0-8CA9-28586E55AF31@starpower.net> Message-ID: <8BAD7CFE-9CB4-4E7D-A193-8CCFA490E47C@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:43:22 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> On Feb 1, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: >> >>> Suppose declarer claims with xxxxxx opposite AQJxxx of trumps, a 12- >>> card >>> fit. I think we would want to give declarer that "normal" play is >>> to drop >>> the king, even if it is offside. In other words, accept the claim. >>> However, if declarer leads towards the AQJ, sees RHO discard, and >>> concedes >>> a trick, I think we don't want to give back the conceded trick to >>> declarer. >> >> We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate doubtful >> points not covered by the claim statement, but we accept irrational >> lines of play if they are explicitly specified (leaving nothing to >> adjudicate). And losing the the king in a twelve-card fit is >> irrational, isn't it? WTP? >> >>> But the laws seem treat the above two situations as exactly the >>> same. >> >> Not so. The declarer who conceded has said explicitly that he will >> lose to the king, so he will lose to the king. Unless the claim "is >> doubted by any player" (no evidence of that here), L70, which allows >> the first claimer to take all the tricks in the suit, doesn't even >> get invoked for the condeder. >> >>> The unstated principle for me is that claimer or conceder should >>> not be >>> given credit for making a better play than the quality of the >>> faulty claim >>> or concession. >> >> Right. That's why we allow irrational plays that were explicit in >> the claim or concession statement to stand. > > Hmmm, you are saying that we allow irrational plays that were > explicit in > the concession to stand BECAUSE of some unstated principle that is > not in > the laws? I have never even heard this said outside the laws, though I > believe it to be true. > > Works for me. But there are a lot of people on blml that will not > like you > doing that. The laws are pretty clear about when concessions do not > stand, > and L71C2 makes no reference to the concession statement or quality > thereof. Indeed. I was treating both declarers as claimers. The underlying point was that absent an ambiguity in the claim statement, there is nothing to "contest", and L70 doesn't appy. But L71 introduces complications. It gets us back to the extended (and never resolved) discussion we had not so long ago, whether to treat a claim of some tricks and a concession of others under the claim rules or the concession rules -- it matters. Applying the clam rules has the virtue of consistency, and maintains the principle that the original statement controls, and that deciding what is "normal" is relevant only when there is some ambiguity in the claim statement that needs to be resolved. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 15:23:17 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:23:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49885355.2060109@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> Richard Hills quibbles: >> >> What's the problem? The problem is that Eric and many other >> blmlers are using the 1997 word "irrational", which word has >> been erased from the 2007 footnote defining "normal". >> >> [Although "irrational" still lurks in Law 70E1.] > > True, formally we should use "not normal", but that is just meaningless. I > was shocked after 2007 revision, because instead of removing "normal" > (completely different from dictionary meaning of this word) from the text, > the lawmakers removed irrational, which at least was used close to its > dictionary meaning. For some doves it may mean that the claim laws are now > milder for faulty claimers. Heh, I wouldn't be surprised if exactly that was > the intention :-( > The smiley is proof of one thing: Maciej, and probably others, are going more on what they want the claim laws to say than on what they try to fathom was the intention of the lawmakers. Indeed one of the intentions of the lawmakers is to have "normal" results. Yes, when a claimer gets something wrong, he shall suffer the worst of all possible results, but only those results that are actually possible at the table are taken into account, not those in which something impossible must happen. Herman. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 3 15:31:58 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:31:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com><001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007d01c9860c$2bd3cc40$15844c59@chello.pl> > Bystry wrote: > > > > By writing "I'm not as harsh as David Burn" I meant I did not support > > forcing the player to make such idiotic plays as you described - discarding > > Aces instead of ruffing. "Irrational" rider would solve it, although it > > should be understood as really irrational, possibly with definition or with > > clarifying examples (to not let doves like Herman to interpret it in order > > to help "poor" faulty claimers). > > > > I don't like the epithet "doves". If it really hurted you, I apologize. Doves are really nice birds... > Here we are, with a minor difference of opinion. I don't let declarers > off the hook. But I wish to give opponents tricks they can get in real > play, no more than that. What is a "real play" for you? Let's leave revokes and misclicks aside, there is a huge amount of silly errors made by the declarers everyday, even at the top level. I saw Zmudzinski in the Vanderbilt (or Spingold) horribly misplaying a contract which average 4-th division player would make. I saw many other top players making similar errors. Let's go down the ladder - finals of Polish MP Championships, I play a contract correctly (but without any extraordinary plays), defenders make no mistake and I get over 70% because many declarers misplayed. In our Grand Prix tournaments it is normal to get 60-80% "for nothing", despite large number of really good players. When I was at the start of my bridge career I thought that top players were semi-gods - I read books and magazines in which superb plays were described and I thought that those players made such fine plays constantly. Thanks to BBO broadcasts I slowly came to senses, then I encountered top players at the table and now I know that it is a myth that they do not make mistakes. Those mistakes are rarer than in lover levels, but still frequent enough to say that they are not irrational, but normal (even in a dictionary sense of that word). I played against Balicki (partnering top Polish players) 3 times in the last Slupsk Summer Congress and my average score was about 70%, not because of extremely lucky circumstances, just because they made some errors (Olanski misplayed one contract badly, it's possible you would give him "just made" if he claimed instead). Sorry Herman, I saw too many mistakes to support mild approach to claiming. Errors are "a salt of bridge", not superb complex plays. Denying even slight defenders' chance for better score is unfair to them and overly favourable to the misclaimers. If there is a 5% chance that the declarer misplays, claim should be so decided. Take any pair and exchange randomly 1 their bottom in 20 for a good score. You'll see that it will improve their standings in a distance. What's more important, this change may happen in a tournament they lost by less than 1%. And change 5% chance for 10% and continue... Don't think that I'm against claiming. I claim very frequently myself, often quite early. But I issue statements nearly every time, it really isn't a waste of time. How long does it take to say "drawing trumps" or "trumps last" etc? One second? Less? Bad habits should be eradicated, not accepted. Rule against misclaimers consistently and they will learn. Rule for them and they will misclaim eternally. > I feel that when playing it out, not a single > table in the world will see the trumps being played. Not a single > opponent will get this trick. Moonshine. Against that statement I would take any bet. Try it, contest a claim of high cards (including trumps) against unfamiliar opponents by saying "yeah, in what order will you play that cards?". They will say "it doesn't matter" or "whatever". > I don't want to give faulty claimers worse > scores than they could have gotten when playing it out. That is not > being a dove, that is being realistic. Realistic? You are protecting the claimers from the mistakes they could have made. That is not a purpose of claiming. Worse score is their fault - they could have played 1-2 tricks more (or issue a clear statement) and decide the outcome themselves. They didn't bother, so they get the worst of it. They are already protected by excluding irrational ("not normal") plays, that is enough. > You are the ones that want to punish the declarer for his faulty claim. I don't want to punish anybody. Oh, maybe I want, I would welcome PPs for lack of claim statements (but certainly not for mistaken claims). But it is less important and I can live without them. I just want to deprive the claimers of any, even the smallest chance of better score thanks to claiming mistakenly or in an unclear situation. Why - I have explained above. > You say you are not "Burn" who is sometimes credited with very harsh > claim rulings, and yet you award a trick that in my opinion could not be > lost in normal play. Your opinion is till now against all the other contributors' opinions. Doesn't it make you at least uncomfortable? Wouldn't it be rational to think about it again? Ignore David and me, but Eric, Jack, Bob, Robert, Alain, Richard, John, Tony or Jeff (I exclude Sven because he is harsh on claims) are not enemies of "equity" approach. Despite that they all want to give 2 tricks to the defenders. > In my opinion, yes. I agree that it is just an opinion. But I'm not a > dove for that. You are. Because you are mild for a player who forgot about a high trump. Why aren't you equally mild for a player who forgot about a small trump? Explain this inconsequence for me. I wrote in the other email - it is possible to forget small pips, it happens quite frequently, but it's harder to forget high ones. So you punish small and common errors, but allow for big ones. > And I'm all for clarifying examples. > This case is screaming for a clarification. > We have one. The Tenerife appeal from the EBL > You don't accept that as a clarification? Then please ask someone even > higher to clarify. I'm in favour of that - and I will accept the > decision for the sake of unity. > In the meanwhile, I will ask the EBL AC to issue a clarification on its > position. EBL AC has no power to make clarifications. That is just an ordinary AC, like ones in Belgium, Poland, Djibouti or Aruba. Right, its quality may be greater, but lawful status is equal. Only WBF and RAs may issue clarifications, but in this case your favoured one would be against the letter of the laws, which is illegal (although as Eric pointed out - it happens). > Herman. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 15:39:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:39:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49884250.6010601@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> Message-ID: <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Herman! I don't want to insult you but I suspect that you have > taken an untenable position and don't want to admit it. To (some of) > the points below: > I feel my position is not only tenable but even stronger, correct. Don't forget that we're on blml. This is a very select group. It is composed of people who have not yet tired of telling Herman he is wrong. Of course that means that there are far more on this list who will go against me (I feel sometimes they do this regardless of what I say) than that there are those who agree with me (some may even be afraid of admitting so). Let's look at your points: > Declarer has two cards, one is a trump, one is not. He believes both of > them are high. I (and almost all of the others) do not see why it would > be irrational or not normal to play either of them. If you really > believe in this position it would anormal to play the trump first, so be > it; that is, you claim, your belief. No one else seems to share it and > a few have asked if you are serious (private emails to me). I wonder > myself. > Well, first of all, he cannot believe both to be "high". A card that is high has no others of the suit higher than itself. Of the non-trumps it does not matter if there are lower ones. Of the trumps it does. So the situation in which the player believes his trumps are high is solved by him cashing the outstanding low trumps. After that, he knows his trumps to be "last". This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. So if you rephrase your own question: he has two cards, a high heart and the last spade (or so he believes), then it is no longer as logical for you to say it does not matter which he plays first. Since they are no longer equal it is possible for us to say which one he'll play first and last. Because think of it: He may believe both things to be true, but he also knows he's not fallible. He's not going to check anything a third time, but he knows he may have gone wrong somewhere. Now ask yourself in that framework which card he'll play first? I'll assure you it's the non-trump. Because if there is one trump out, he'll lose only one of his two tricks this way, while playing the trump might result in him losing both. Rational? Thank you. Of course he does not believe he has gone wrong, but playing trumps in this situation is so counter-intuitive I have called it non-normal. > Small trumps from both sides of the table? There are no both sides of > the table in the case I posed. He has 2 cards and must play one of them. > Are you trying to confuse matters by suddenly introducing an > irrelevant "both sides of the table"? > I meant dummy - which held another trump in the example I gave. (there were 2 trumps in hand and in dummy, and declarer erroneously thought there was only one trump with defender, and he stated he's draw that one. After which, there is one trump on both sides of the table. Again, the line of playing both trumps is the worst one possible. And players know that. > I posed the question (presented the case) on blml because it came up in > Germany and there was some disagreement as to proper procedure. An > inexperienced club td awarded only one trick. In the interim I have > about 30 or 40 responses. You are, until now, the only (almost the only > one? I may have missed something and a few did not say, discussed other > aspects) one who does not give two tricks. But the vast majority have > said they consider it normal to play either of the two remaining cards. > And I gave a very good counter-example in which an AC of the highest quality (including three very well-known AC members) decided like I did (and the fact that I was one of those three does not alter anything to that statement). If I may speak out of committee, and if my memory does me no disservice, this part of the decision was unanimous (as were the other parts, but that is of no importance). > You may respond if you wish but I am not going to continue this > discussion with you. You seem to take pleasure in taking controverse > positions and then arguing about them for years and years. That > probably has more to do with psychology, personal characteristics than > with bridge. Ciao, with friendly greetings, hope to see you soon, JE > I do not take pleasure in being alone in an ocean of people who refuse to see that some of their positions may be challenged. I used to think that I was talking to a bunch of reasonable people who might change their views once the errors of their pre-held positions was explained to them. I am beginning to think I was wrong in that. I am talking to a group of stubborn individuals. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 15:45:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:45:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <004101c98600$20f949a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><49872795.9010502@aol.com> <498803A3.6070404@skynet.be> <004101c98600$20f949a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49885886.8090808@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > I suppose Jeff knows that. He just wanted to say that we should strongly > encourage the players to make correct claim statements. Errors will still > happen (I'm claiming quite well, but nevertheless I was wrong in the past, > once I even forgot a high card in a side suit, although I was lucky thanks > to making a statement, so I lost only one trick), but they will be rarer and > rarer as long as we consequently rule against the claimers. > Consequently? Do you really think I consequently rule for the claimers? This is the same thing that is always wrong on blml. One claim case is posted per year, and I rule one way, you the other. And when you stop finding arguments against my ruling, you start crying "Herman always rules in favour of the claimer". Can you not see that there are approximately 1,000,000 claims every year, and that we agree on the ruling in 999,999 of them? Please stop this ridiculous kind of argument. About 100,000 claims will be wrong every year, and 99,999 of them will see the claimer lose one or more tricks he should have gotten. Don't worry about this one case - it will not influence people in claiming worse, quite on the contrary once you have told them they escaped only just. Herman. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 15:49:32 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 09:49:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> Message-ID: <7BC6662C-5AFF-40BF-915B-3A32E394D725@starpower.net> On Feb 2, 2009, at 7:45 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > >> Bridge is not a game of attritional psychology; ethical players do >> not try to win by deliberately exhausting an opponent's mental >> stamina and then taking advantage of having done so. It is unfair, >> unethical and improper to deliberately put your opponents "through >> the wringer" when you know that their play doesn't matter. As it >> happens, it's also explicitly illegal (L74B4 > > An assertion I cannot accept. > > Or how do you behave as RHO in the following situation: > > Early in the play a small spade is led towards K J in dummy and > Declarer > starts thinking. For the purpose of this question it doesn't matter > whether > the lead was from your partner or from declarer (your partner in case > followed suit with a small spade); you hold A Q. > > Do you show your spades to declarer and tell him it doesn't matter > which > card he selects, or do you keep quiet until he has made up his mind > without > any "help" from you? Actually, yes, I have done so more than once when it was perfectly clear to everyone at the table that declarer's apparent guess at that point was the only decision with any potential effect on the outcome of the hand. So, on occasion have my opponents. I do not assert that the law requires this; it is merely a courtesy, but an appreciated one that makes for a more congenial game. > I strongly resent (for more than one reason) any insinuation that > you are > supposed to show any of your cards to declarer in order to speed up > his > play. In fact, although not illegal I consider such attitude by a > defender > highly irregular. I do not argue that your "are supposed to" do this, in the sense of it being required by law. I intended no such "insinuation". I do, however, reject the notion that a defender who doesn't show his AQ over dummy's KJ is in any way analogous to a declarer who doesn't claim "although he knows that all the tricks are surely his" [L74B4]. > Incidentally I also consider it absolutely incorrect if I as the > Director > should be supposed to interrupt the play at a late table knowing > that the > result on the board no longer depends on what line of play they > might select > for their last tricks. Of course. The play is supposed to be interrupted (claim or concession; play ceases) when a player at the table is certain that the result on the board no longer depends on the subsequent play. That the director is aware of this is irrelevant; he cannot assume that the potential claimer is equally aware of the situation. Although if, as the director, I were covinced that a player was in a position to claim and knew it, but played on unnecessarily in potential violation of L74B4, I might have a word with him in private later. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 16:48:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:48:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 1:19 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau asserted: > >> We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate >> doubtful points not covered by the claim statement, but we >> accept irrational lines of play if they are explicitly >> specified (leaving nothing to adjudicate). And losing the >> king in a twelve-card fit is irrational, isn't it? WTP? > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > What's the problem? The problem is that Eric and many other > blmlers are using the 1997 word "irrational", which word has > been erased from the 2007 footnote defining "normal". It was, wasn't it? I was quite shocked to discover this when the new laws were first released. Fortunately, though, it has been made quite clear (including in this forum) that they didn't really mean it. The problem, of course, is that any play that might be considered "irrational" must perforce be either careless or inferior; it cannot be simultaneously careful, superior, and irrational. So if we take the footnote, with the elision of the parenthetical, literally, "normal" includes any legal play whatsoever. That would leave us in Burnian Hell, where a claimer who failed to specify that he intended to take two tricks from a holding of A2 opposite K3 would be awarded only one. And where a claim of "I have the rest" with no stated line of play -- from a declarer who has the rest in top tricks, and everyone knows it -- if contested, would result in an adjustment to the outcome that would have been achieved had the declarer played double-dummy misere. We know that that isn't what the lawmakers intended when they attempted to resolve the controversy over the interaction between "irrational" and "class of player" by dropping the former altogether, with potentially severe unintended consequences. I can't tell you exactly how the current law is to be interpreted -- I'm not at all sure anyone can -- but it surely comes closer to a literal interpretation of the old footnote than to a literal interpretation of the current one. I don't deny that an official clarification (if there isn't already one in the leopard-loo) would be helpful. > [Although "irrational" still lurks in Law 70E1.] > > And, as Robert Frick has noted, even an explicitly specified > concession of an offside king in a twelve-card fit might be > deemed to be not "normal", so therefore a player would not > necessarily be held to such an explicitly specified > concession. > > Law 71(2): > > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director > shall cancel a concession: > if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by > any normal* play of the remaining cards. > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play > that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 3 16:57:03 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:57:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> <49885355.2060109@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Bystry wrote: > >> Richard Hills quibbles: > >> > >> What's the problem? The problem is that Eric and many other > >> blmlers are using the 1997 word "irrational", which word has > >> been erased from the 2007 footnote defining "normal". > >> > >> [Although "irrational" still lurks in Law 70E1.] > > > > True, formally we should use "not normal", but that is just meaningless. I > > was shocked after 2007 revision, because instead of removing "normal" > > (completely different from dictionary meaning of this word) from the text, > > the lawmakers removed irrational, which at least was used close to its > > dictionary meaning. For some doves it may mean that the claim laws are now > > milder for faulty claimers. Heh, I wouldn't be surprised if exactly that was > > the intention :-( > > > > The smiley is proof of one thing: Maciej, and probably others, are going > more on what they want the claim laws to say than on what they try to > fathom was the intention of the lawmakers. I can't speak for others, but I stressed many times the importance of the letter of the law. Yes, I'd want to see it changed, but as long as it isn't I'll obey it and I clearly distinguish in my contributions between my opinions and reality. > Indeed one of the intentions of the lawmakers is to have "normal" > results. Yes, when a claimer gets something wrong, he shall suffer the > worst of all possible results, but only those results that are actually > possible at the table are taken into account, not those in which > something impossible must happen. I agree. But nobody wants to force "impossible" things on the misclaimer (maybe except David in his harshest version). Even some "possible" things are not enforced, like revokes, underruffing, not finessing on 100% etc, in spite of the fact that they happen. Herman, this is not the contest of eristic. Ridiculizing others' arguments is a known trick, yes, but it doesn't make you win the polemics. All of us simply state that it is quite normal to play high cards in a random order, trumps included. Elementary logic, mathematics, bridge rules support us. Your argument is - the players are *never* sure that there is no high card left, so they are *always* playing trumps as last ones. I stressed "never" and "always", because without those words your argument would fall. Even if 5% of the players would play trumps first, it would be "normal" and would have to be imposed on the misclaimer. But you admit yourself that you have never seen anybody still playing in such endings. I have seen, although too few cases to draw conclusions. Let's go back to your argument. You are saying "the players are never sure". In a meta-sense you are right, human memory is fallible and there is never a real objective 100% certainty. But every human is constantly subjective, even if he pretends to be objective. In subjective sense many players are 100% sure that their cards are high, as they are 100% sure of many other things (name of the prime minister, birthday of mother, result of a football match, colour of the dress lastly seen, whatever). Despite this certainty they are wrong sometimes. That's because their mind is deluded, but at that moment this deluded state of mind is subjectivly equal with a correct state of mind. I have never met any person who is so extremely careful to never say that he is completely sure of something. It is absolutely essential for people to believe their senses in order to function properly. Imagine standing on the one side of the street and being too afraid to cross it because your eyes may be wrong (it happens) and the car may actually been speeding in the direction of your hypothetical passage. Imagine all the workers who have to make decisions without any written manuals available, straight from their memory. Should they become paralyzed, knock back doing their job unless they have a manual at hand? Bridge players behave in a similar way, they base their plays on their observations and their memory and they are frequently subjectively sure that they are right. I'm not trying to say that safeguards are unnecessary. They sometimes are, if they are relatively costless or if someone is unsure. But if the player is 100% sure (although subjectively) he won't waste his mental energy to think about safeguards. That is a standard human behavior - to make subjective judgements whether spent "energy" is worth of the result. You are making such judgements everyday, e.g. sitting at home, wanting to eat something sweet but having none - you are deciding whether dressing up and going to the shop is worth of satisfying your whim, or whether you want to wake up in the middle of the night in order to watch some important sport event. The player who observed and counted played cards carefully and is subjectively sure that his remaining ones are high won't waste the time and energy to think again and wonder whether he forgot something or not. He just claims, being sure that there is no problem. If the claims were forbidden, he would play his remaining cards quickly in a random order, irritated that he has to waste his time. And if there is even the slightest doubt in his mind, he can claim with a statement like "trump(s) last". The laws say that he should issue a statement, ne c'est pas? > Herman. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 17:05:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:05:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:29 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> So here I am, with what I believe to be winners in more than one suit >> and a set of trumps that I believe are the only ones left. >> >> I do not claim. I simply pull cards from my hand at random, and play >> them in the order they come out. > > But that is exactly what I am saying is irrational. > What I am saying is that it is rational for you to make two heaps, one > of high cards, and one of last trumps, and to randomly draw one of the > side suit cards. > > of course if you are going to translate your irrational actions into > some other set of actions and then call them rational, you are > going to > have arguments that seem fine - but this argument is flawed for the > same > reason as all those before. Trumps are not side suits, and it is not > rational to treat them the same! > >> The first card that comes out just happens to be a high trump, and >> when I play it, lo and behold, an unexpected small trump appears from >> an opponent. I continue to play my cards at random, and take the all >> the tricks. Lucky me. >> >> I would challenge Herman to explain to me how I have misplayed the >> hand. What specific error did I make that constituted a patently >> inferior play? > > Take this one: you have failed to guard against an enormous miscount. > Even when you are certain, you know that you have been wrong before. How is it irrational for me to believe that I am far more likely to have made a "minor" miscount than an "enormous" one? How is it irrational for me to believe that I might be more likely have missed a low card than a high one? > Let's put it like this: You are holding nothing but high hearts and > diamonds, and spades (trumps) that you believe to be last. > You want to claim, but you are playing against notoriously angry > opponents, so you don't. > You know you have been distracted somewhere along the line, and so one > of your three "thoughts" might be wrong: there might be trumps out, or > there might be hearts or diamonds not high. (See that I had to > describe > these differently - trumps and side suits are not the same!) > You don't know which might happen, but a small thought will make it > clear that if you lose the lead through playing your trumps from both > sides, they will cash clubs and you'll be lots down. > Do you agree that it's irrational to play the trumps first? > > If your (supposedly last) trump loses because you play it, you have > lost > the lead and possibly some more tricks. > But if your (supposedly last) trump is not the last and they ruff > one of > your high cards - you can get in with your trump and not a lot is > lost. > > It is clear to see that cashing last trumps is irrational. > > But I don't want to continue this discussion - because I want to > have a > uniform set of rules, which deals with this case. I want the WBF to > pronounce itself, and all the director's noses be turned in the same > direction - so this discussion need not be repeated! > >> It cannot possibly make any sense whatsoever to assert that I have >> played the hand "irrationally" without having committed any >> demonstrable error or misplay. > > Well, have I demonstrated it? Not at all. In my original example, if I knew that that trump was still out, it would be irrational for me to play in any way other than I did. So how can it possibly be irrational to play this way when I believe it doesn't matter? How can it ever be "wrong" to play the hand perfectly, even if I have done so only by dumb luck? > Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 3 17:23:56 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 17:23:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> > Jeff Easterson wrote: > > Hola Herman! I don't want to insult you but I suspect that you have > > taken an untenable position and don't want to admit it. To (some of) > > the points below: > > > > I feel my position is not only tenable but even stronger, correct. > Don't forget that we're on blml. This is a very select group. It is > composed of people who have not yet tired of telling Herman he is wrong. > Of course that means that there are far more on this list who will go > against me (I feel sometimes they do this regardless of what I say) than > that there are those who agree with me (some may even be afraid of > admitting so). Don't be childish Herman. This is not a kindergarten, BLML members are adults and certainly aren't afraid of admitting that you are right if they feel so. Pretending to be victimized wins some votes in politics and maybe the compassion of naive people, but in fact is a dirty trick. Look at Nigel, he is similarly advertising controversial issues, very often against nearly all the others. But he is never whining, never writing about Nigel-bashing, never stating that all the others are wrong. Please, follow his example, that way maybe you won't win the polemics, but you'll remain the man of integrity and honour. > Well, first of all, he cannot believe both to be "high". A card that is > high has no others of the suit higher than itself. Of the non-trumps it > does not matter if there are lower ones. Of the trumps it does. > > So the situation in which the player believes his trumps are high is > solved by him cashing the outstanding low trumps. After that, he knows > his trumps to be "last". > > This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you > don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the > trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. Your logic is faulty. "Last" trump is a "high" trump because it "has no others of the suit higher than itself" (your own words). Anyway, look at the end. > Because think of it: He may believe both things to be true, but he also > knows he's not fallible. He's not going to check anything a third time, > but he knows he may have gone wrong somewhere. Now ask yourself in that > framework which card he'll play first? I'll assure you it's the > non-trump. Because if there is one trump out, he'll lose only one of his > two tricks this way, while playing the trump might result in him losing > both. Rational? Thank you. > Of course he does not believe he has gone wrong, but playing trumps in > this situation is so counter-intuitive I have called it non-normal. So why doesn't he claim with a statement "trump(s) last"? It is a perfect safeguard. He fails to make it, so he'd probably fail to make a safety play. Now tell me, what would you decide if the claimer's remaining cards were T (trump suit) 7 ? He would be sure these are winners and claim without a statement. Do you still maintain that forgetting about 8 of the other suit is more probable than forgetting about trump honor? You'll say that he cannot gain by playing trump first, but he can. The opponents may throw out forgotten higher card of a side suit. So is it still "not normal" to play trump T before side seven? I would have a hard time finding anyone (excluding total beginners) who would be unsure on the 10th trick whether all the trump honors were played. So for this player playing trump really cannot lose, but it can gain (although rarely). If you decide this case as all of us, then where is the border? If you remain at your position, then what with A (trump suit) 2? Is it still "not normal" to play a trump Ace? Sorry, but that wouldn't be simply illogical, that would be absurd. So "trumps last" is not a valid, logical rule. The lawmakers may regulate so, but that way they will only artificially (without bridge or logical cause) save those misclaimers who forgot about a high trump, punishing those who forgot about a small one. Give me one reason why should it be so. > Herman. Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 17:28:11 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:28:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49880507.5060508@skynet.be> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> <49880507.5060508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <9B790F0C-AD66-4819-BEEE-0FCD0B1ED291@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >> WARNING: The following message may appear to some to be "Herman- >> bashing". > > Yes, it is Herman-bashing. Of a very special kind - not one I mind, > but > one which is particularly strong in some people. > >> Nigel is, IMO, being quite unfair to Richard, Marvin, Sven and >> David. They have, in this thread, "suggest[ed] different >> interpretations of the law" in the normative sense, but none of them >> has ever said anything to suggest that they would ever, as TDs, act >> according to those interpretations rather than to what they >> understand to be generally accepted (albeit perhaps regretted) >> jurisprudential principles. > > What Eric is saying here, is that Richard et.al. would rule as they > believe the laws to be. Or rather, that Richard et.al. would rule as > Eric believes the laws to be. > Eric is apparently saying that I would not rule as I believe the > laws to > be. But of course I do rule as I believe the laws to be. I just don't > think Richard et.al., and Eric, are right in what they believe the > laws > to be. > > So what Eric is saying is that Herman is wrong because he disagrees > with > Eric. And that is Herman-bashing of the most insidious kind. What Eric is saying has nothing to do with the merits of individual interpretations of the law. Richard, Marvin, Sven, David, Eric and Herman all have their own idiosyncratic notions about how the claim laws should ideally be interpreted. It may well be that Richard's, Marvin's, Sven's, David's and/or Eric's interpretation differ every bit as much as Herman's does from the consensually accepted interpretation put forth formally by relevant authorities. > We are right, and Herman is Herman, so Herman is wrong. But Richard, Marvin, Sven, David and Eric accept the obligation, when they put their TD hats on, to make rulings in accordance with the consensually accepted interpretation put forth formally by relevant authorities. I argue that we are right to do so, our own firmly held views on the subject notwithstanding. Herman does not accept that obligation, and insists on his entitlement to rule according to his own peculiar interpretation of the law. On that point, I assert, Herman is wrong. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 17:40:14 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:40:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <004101c98600$20f949a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><49872795.9010502@aol.com> <498803A3.6070404@skynet.be> <004101c98600$20f949a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6067EC79-15A0-4312-BAE0-BF798B4EF797@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Bystry wrote: > [L68] > > C. Clarification Required for Claim > A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to > the *order > in which cards will be played*, of the line of play or defence > through which > the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. > > [/L68] > > By the way, in my opinion it would be better if "should" was > changed for > "must". The vast majority of claims play out something like this: Claimer: "I have the rest." Shows hand. Oppoents: "So you do." Score it up; on to the next hand. This happens all the time, every day, every place bridge is played. I see no merit in making it illegal. It is easy to forget that contentious claims, despite constituting 100% of the claims that get discussed in this forum, are extremely rare. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 18:01:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:01:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> Message-ID: <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:09 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > Those who argue in favor of (more) claims with reference to Law 74B4 > probably overlooks that what a player should refrain from is not > unnecessarily playing on as such; it is unnecessarily playing on > *** for the > purpose of disconcerting an opponent *** > > Quote from Law 74B: > As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: > ............. > 4. prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he > knows that > all the tricks are surely his) for the purpose of disconcerting an > opponent. > > So in order to criticize a player that did not claim although (in your > opinion) he could have done so you must establish not only that the > position > justified a claim, but that his PURPOSE of playing on rather than > claiming > was to disconcert an opponent. (A possible fact that an opponent > claims > having been disconcerted is definitely not sufficient). I'd have said that you must establish not only that the position justified a claim, but that he knew it. I think that's equivalent to what Sven has said, because one can logically infer in that situation that he can have no other, legitimate purpose for playing on. Practice flipping cards accurately onto the table? > I have no objection against claims in general, but I have strong > objections > against doubtful claims being resolved in a way that discards possible > errors the claiming player COULD have made had he played on instead of > claiming. Change "could have made" to "could have made without acting irrationally" and I'd agree entirely. > If I were to write new and simpler claim laws I would have gone > back to the > original principles: "To the extent that the claimer has not > specified the > exact card to be played the actual card to be played shall be > determined by > his opponents." That gets us to where any technical flaw or ambiguity in a claim statement could trigger an adjustment to the double-dummy misere result. If a declarer can count the remaining tricks in high cards, do we really want to impose a Draconian adjustment for his failure to state explicitly that he will not discard any of his winners while running some other suit, or that he will play A2 opposite K3 by putting the three, not the king, under the ace? > Such a rule will have absolutely no impact on "correct" claims, but > it will > effectively discourage questionable or doubtful claims and as such > will work > to improve the standards in bridge play. True, if we insist on defining a claim statement as correct only if it precisely delineates the proposed play card by card. But I prefer a game in which "I have the rest" is a "correct" claim if it is apparent to everyone at the table that the claimer has the rest, not one in which most of the rest get taken away in adjudication on a technicality when some Secretary Bird contests an obviously good claim. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 18:03:06 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:03:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> <49885355.2060109@skynet.be> <001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498878CA.9050309@skynet.be> Hello Maciej, Bystry wrote: >>> the intention :-( >>> >> The smiley is proof of one thing: Maciej, and probably others, are going >> more on what they want the claim laws to say than on what they try to >> fathom was the intention of the lawmakers. > > I can't speak for others, but I stressed many times the importance of the > letter of the law. Yes, I'd want to see it changed, but as long as it isn't > I'll obey it and I clearly distinguish in my contributions between my > opinions and reality. > OK, I apologise - just admit that the smiley was of the other distinction. >> Indeed one of the intentions of the lawmakers is to have "normal" >> results. Yes, when a claimer gets something wrong, he shall suffer the >> worst of all possible results, but only those results that are actually >> possible at the table are taken into account, not those in which >> something impossible must happen. > > I agree. But nobody wants to force "impossible" things on the misclaimer > (maybe except David in his harshest version). Even some "possible" things > are not enforced, like revokes, underruffing, not finessing on 100% etc, in > spite of the fact that they happen. > We agree on this point. The only point we disagree upon is what is possible and what is impossible. > Herman, this is not the contest of eristic. Ridiculizing others' arguments > is a known trick, yes, but it doesn't make you win the polemics. All of us > simply state that it is quite normal to play high cards in a random order, > trumps included. *high* cards, I agree. My point is that trumps are not *high*, they are *last*. And until you understand that there is a difference, this discussion is not important. > Elementary logic, mathematics, bridge rules support us. Yes, elementary logic suggests that there is no difference between one *high* card and another. But the same elementary logic suggests that there is a difference between a high heart and a last trump. So don't belittle me by trying to make it seem as if I'm going against elementary logic. Ridiculising others' arguments doesn't make you win polemics. > Your argument is - the players are *never* sure that there is no high card > left, so they are *always* playing trumps as last ones. I stressed "never" > and "always", because without those words your argument would fall. Indeed it would. And you have my expressed my point quite correctly. > Even if > 5% of the players would play trumps first, it would be "normal" and would > have to be imposed on the misclaimer. Yes indeed. But ask yourself - why would someone play trumps first? And is that situation compatible with the one we are talking of - of a player who knows trumps to be *last* - not *high*? > But you admit yourself that you have > never seen anybody still playing in such endings. I have seen, although too > few cases to draw conclusions. > Oh, I have seen them as well. Beginners mostly. Who keep their trumps well guarded, except when drawing one to make absolutely certain. And I've never seen anyone draw more than one trumpt "to make certain". > Let's go back to your argument. You are saying "the players are never sure". Indeed. > In a meta-sense you are right, human memory is fallible and there is never a > real objective 100% certainty. But every human is constantly subjective, > even if he pretends to be objective. In subjective sense many players are > 100% sure that their cards are high, as they are 100% sure of many other > things (name of the prime minister, birthday of mother, result of a football > match, colour of the dress lastly seen, whatever). Despite this certainty > they are wrong sometimes. That's because their mind is deluded, but at that > moment this deluded state of mind is subjectivly equal with a correct state > of mind. > My point entirely. These people are 100% certain, and still they know that they have been 100% certain before, and were still mistaken. It does not influence them to refrain from claiming (after all, they are 100% certain), but it does constitute their "frame of mind". > I have never met any person who is so extremely careful to never say that he > is completely sure of something. It is absolutely essential for people to > believe their senses in order to function properly. Imagine standing on the > one side of the street and being too afraid to cross it because your eyes > may be wrong (it happens) and the car may actually been speeding in the > direction of your hypothetical passage. Imagine all the workers who have to > make decisions without any written manuals available, straight from their > memory. Should they become paralyzed, knock back doing their job unless they > have a manual at hand? Bridge players behave in a similar way, they base > their plays on their observations and their memory and they are frequently > subjectively sure that they are right. > > I'm not trying to say that safeguards are unnecessary. They sometimes are, > if they are relatively costless or if someone is unsure. But if the player > is 100% sure (although subjectively) he won't waste his mental energy to > think about safeguards. That is a standard human behavior - to make > subjective judgements whether spent "energy" is worth of the result. You are > making such judgements everyday, e.g. sitting at home, wanting to eat > something sweet but having none - you are deciding whether dressing up and > going to the shop is worth of satisfying your whim, or whether you want to > wake up in the middle of the night in order to watch some important sport > event. > > The player who observed and counted played cards carefully and is > subjectively sure that his remaining ones are high won't waste the time and > energy to think again and wonder whether he forgot something or not. He just > claims, being sure that there is no problem. If the claims were forbidden, > he would play his remaining cards quickly in a random order, irritated that > he has to waste his time. > Indeed. But how would he play his cards in random order? I maintain that he would not chose a fully random order, but one in which the non-trumps are played first, in some random suit order, and top-down within the suits. It's an elementary safe-guard, which has been engrained into him from very early on. > And if there is even the slightest doubt in his mind, he can claim with a > statement like "trump(s) last". The laws say that he should issue a > statement, ne c'est pas? > Yes, and the laws also say that he shall not be deemed to play irrationally, n'est ce pas? >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 18:18:37 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:18:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >>> >>> I would challenge Herman to explain to me how I have misplayed the >>> hand. What specific error did I make that constituted a patently >>> inferior play? >> Take this one: you have failed to guard against an enormous miscount. >> Even when you are certain, you know that you have been wrong before. > > How is it irrational for me to believe that I am far more likely to > have made a "minor" miscount than an "enormous" one? How is it > irrational for me to believe that I might be more likely have missed > a low card than a high one? > But it's not a question of a minor miscount or an enormous one - it's the case of a minor setback or an enormous one. Take this case: 8 J JT - ? ? - AKQ 7 4 43 - I "know" the Jacks are high and the spades (trumps) have all gone. I also know that I might have made a mistake somewhere. Now I could be missing A) a red queen, B) the spade (trump) 9, or: C) the spade 6 If I start by playing a red jack, then in: case A: I will lose a trick to the red queen, but this is a trick I will lose always. case B: I will lose a trick to the S9, but this is a trick I will lose always. case C: I will lose a trick to the S6, and I'll have dropped a trick. If OTOH I start by playing my trump, then in case A: I will lose either 3 or 2 tricks, depending on whether I chose to start with the right jack or not; I will have dropped 2 or 3 tricks; case B: I will lose 4 tricks, three more than I should have; case C: I will make all tricks, exactly as I should have. Therefore, it is a losing line to start by playing the trumps. Now this is what I call irrational. You might of course call it merely careless, but my point is that all players know this instinctively, and it is the kind of carelessness that has been bred out of the players from an early moment. OK? >> Let's put it like this: You are holding nothing but high hearts and >> diamonds, and spades (trumps) that you believe to be last. >> You want to claim, but you are playing against notoriously angry >> opponents, so you don't. >> You know you have been distracted somewhere along the line, and so one >> of your three "thoughts" might be wrong: there might be trumps out, or >> there might be hearts or diamonds not high. (See that I had to >> describe >> these differently - trumps and side suits are not the same!) >> You don't know which might happen, but a small thought will make it >> clear that if you lose the lead through playing your trumps from both >> sides, they will cash clubs and you'll be lots down. >> Do you agree that it's irrational to play the trumps first? >> >> If your (supposedly last) trump loses because you play it, you have >> lost >> the lead and possibly some more tricks. >> But if your (supposedly last) trump is not the last and they ruff >> one of >> your high cards - you can get in with your trump and not a lot is >> lost. >> >> It is clear to see that cashing last trumps is irrational. >> >> But I don't want to continue this discussion - because I want to >> have a >> uniform set of rules, which deals with this case. I want the WBF to >> pronounce itself, and all the director's noses be turned in the same >> direction - so this discussion need not be repeated! >> >>> It cannot possibly make any sense whatsoever to assert that I have >>> played the hand "irrationally" without having committed any >>> demonstrable error or misplay. >> Well, have I demonstrated it? > > Not at all. In my original example, if I knew that that trump was > still out, it would be irrational for me to play in any way other > than I did. So how can it possibly be irrational to play this way > when I believe it doesn't matter? How can it ever be "wrong" to play > the hand perfectly, even if I have done so only by dumb luck? > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 18:20:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:20:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49887CE1.7010001@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> >> This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you >> don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the >> trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. > > Your logic is faulty. "Last" trump is a "high" trump because it "has no > others of the suit higher than itself" (your own words). Anyway, look at the > end. > Maciej, what you are saying is that you agree two things are different but the difference doesn't matter, so you call them the same. Are you really suggesting that a trump is the same thing as a side-suit card? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 18:27:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:27:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > So why doesn't he claim with a statement "trump(s) last"? It is a perfect > safeguard. He fails to make it, so he'd probably fail to make a safety play. > He makes no such statement because he believes that to be "normal". Like he doesn't say "drawing trumps" when claiming seven spades at trick one, holding 11 trumps wfrom AK and two aces. As for your second statement: "so he'd probably fail to make a safety play." Why do you consider it probable for a player to play differently than "trumps last"? You have just made a major leap - in another post you say that maybe 5% of players would not play that way - now it's "probable"? Because he did not say it? > Now tell me, what would you decide if the claimer's remaining cards were T > (trump suit) 7 ? He would be sure these are winners and claim without a > statement. Do you still maintain that forgetting about 8 of the other suit > is more probable than forgetting about trump honor? No, of course not! All forgettings are equally probable, but the cost of playing a trump first (if that is the mistake made) is huge compared to the cost of playing side suits first, when still holding trumps in order to get back in. > You'll say that he > cannot gain by playing trump first, but he can. The opponents may throw out > forgotten higher card of a side suit. So is it still "not normal" to play > trump T before side seven? I would have a hard time finding anyone > (excluding total beginners) who would be unsure on the 10th trick whether > all the trump honors were played. So for this player playing trump really > cannot lose, but it can gain (although rarely). > > If you decide this case as all of us, then where is the border? If you > remain at your position, then what with A (trump suit) 2? Is it still "not > normal" to play a trump Ace? Sorry, but that wouldn't be simply illogical, > that would be absurd. So "trumps last" is not a valid, logical rule. The > lawmakers may regulate so, but that way they will only artificially (without > bridge or logical cause) save those misclaimers who forgot about a high > trump, punishing those who forgot about a small one. Give me one reason why > should it be so. > Sorry Maciej, but I don't understand this last point. Of course someone who forgets about a low trump will see that trump being made by the opponents. But so will the declarer who has forgotten about a high trump - he shall lose one trick to it. Because they are both in the exact same situation, they both "know" that there are no more trumps out. And they are both wrong, and they should both suffer, by having one of their tricks unexpectedly being ruffed. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 3 18:44:10 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:44:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49887CE1.7010001@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887CE1.7010001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4988826A.2010108@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Bystry wrote: > >>> This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you >>> don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the >>> trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. >>> >> Your logic is faulty. "Last" trump is a "high" trump because it "has no >> others of the suit higher than itself" (your own words). Anyway, look at the >> end. >> >> > > Maciej, what you are saying is that you agree two things are different > but the difference doesn't matter, so you call them the same. > Are you really suggesting that a trump is the same thing as a side-suit > card? > AG : I'm afraid you didn't understand Maciej's point. If we define (as most would do) a "high" card as one that is higher than any card of the same suit held by any other player (said otherwise : you won't find any higher card in some other hand), then the last card of a suit is always "high". There is a difference, in the fact that a last card si always high but a high card isn't always last, but if the question is "is that last card high ?", the answer is positive. It's as you didn't want to allow a square to be a rectangle. Best regards Alain. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 18:49:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 12:49:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Bystry wrote: >> Eric Landau asserted: >> >>> We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate >>> doubtful points not covered by the claim statement, but we >>> accept irrational lines of play if they are explicitly >>> specified (leaving nothing to adjudicate). And losing the >>> king in a twelve-card fit is irrational, isn't it? WTP? >> >> Richard Hills quibbles: >> >> What's the problem? The problem is that Eric and many other >> blmlers are using the 1997 word "irrational", which word has >> been erased from the 2007 footnote defining "normal". >> >> [Although "irrational" still lurks in Law 70E1.] > > True, formally we should use "not normal", but that is just > meaningless. Exactly! It is absolutely and totally meaningless. > I > was shocked after 2007 revision, because instead of removing "normal" > (completely different from dictionary meaning of this word) from > the text, > the lawmakers removed irrational, which at least was used close to its > dictionary meaning. For some doves it may mean that the claim laws > are now > milder for faulty claimers. Heh, I wouldn't be surprised if exactly > that was > the intention :-( The point of the footnote is (and has always been) to preempt the argument by some self-styled expert that for a player of his caliber it would be abnormal to make an inferior or careless play. Thus the footnote, which says that "normal" goes beyond encompassing only careful, superior play, to "include[] play that would be careless or inferior..." With the reference to "irrational" gone, there are no exclusions. Every possible play must, by definition, be (a) careless, thus "normal" by the footnote, (b) inferior, thus "normal" by the footnote, or (c) neither careless nor inferior, thus normal by any definition, footnote or no footnote. If we take the footnote literally, there is *no such thing* as a play which is "not normal". Fortunately, we have been reassured by TPTB that this is not how the law should be read. >> And, as Robert Frick has noted, even an explicitly specified >> concession of an offside king in a twelve-card fit might be >> deemed to be not "normal", so therefore a player would not >> necessarily be held to such an explicitly specified >> concession. >> >> Law 71(2): >> >> A concession must stand, once made, except that within the >> Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director >> shall cancel a concession: >> if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by >> any normal* play of the remaining cards. >> >> * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play >> that would be careless or inferior for the class of player >> involved. > > Unfortunately true. For me it is silly. Worse than that, idiotic. The > claimer's mind wanders and he wants to concede a trick to the King > despite > having 12 card in a suit. If he was forced to play it out, he could > play an > Ace or small, both possibilities are likely. But if he claims > instead, he > can come back to his senses after the round and get his trick back. > Outrageous. Where is the compensation for all that players who make > normal > mistakes during the play? I just hope that most TDs would decide that > playing low was "normal" for that claimer in his state of mind. If the footnote were to be taken literally, there would be no possible debate on this point. That we even mention the claimer's "state of mind" implies an understanding that the literal interpretation is absurd. Otherwise even absolute 100% agreement by every bridge authority in the world that a particular play would be the most egregiously irrational play they have ever seen would not suffice to keep it from being "normal". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 3 19:11:02 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:11:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> <4987B055.8040207@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <498888B6.6050702@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] Hi Nigel. What about if I claim to have all of the tricks, someone disputes the claim, and that gives me the idea that a trump might be out that I forgot about? What if I claim, someone disputes the claim, and that gives me the idea that I have miscounted my winners? I check and I have. These are the worry of the people who wrote the claim laws. I assume. [Nigel] I accept that such cases occur, that the claimer might profit undetectably, and that on-line claim law is not perfect. It just seems simpler, clearer, fairer and better at encouraging claims than face-to-face claim law. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 3 19:15:47 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:15:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> I said I wasn't going to continue the discussion but shall violate that promise. I doubt that your command of English is better than mine ("high") but that isn't terribly relative. It is unimportant if we say "high" or "good" or "a winner" or whatever. The meaning is clear to all. Questioning the usage of "high" is grasping a straw and a diversion, not relevant. I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and waste of time. Stop giving examples and deal with the problem at hand. I clearly stated that the other two hands were irrelevant, that included the dummy. To restate the original problem (as far as I recall, may have confused unimportant details): declarer has the trump 6 and a high spade (might have been a heart) and a defender has the trump 8 and a high heart (might have been a spade). You have my permission to call any of these cards "high", "good", "winner", "last", "master" or whatever you like. And, I repeat, the other hands are, in this problem, irrelevant. Declarer (claimer) claims the last two tricks (implication) by showing his cards and saying he believes there are no more trumps out. The clear inference is that he believes both cards are good (winners, high, whatever you like). He makes no further statement, does not say in which order he proposes to play these last two cards. I shan't waste more time and space by mentioning that this is an improper, or incomplete, claim. Your position, as I understand it, is that he would automatically play the high (not trump) card first and that it would not be normal (or it would be irrational?) to play the trump first. That seems to be your position and I, of course, must accept it, assume you are serious. In the correspondence I have had (blml and privately from other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have been about 30-35 others who say either card could normally, or possibly, be played. A few have even been baffled and asked in unbelief what could be the possible reason to not give the defenders 2 tricks. Okay, as they say in Germany at football matches, "Ende der Durchsage"; that is, this is definitely my last attempt to discuss this. But again, as the Germans say, "Nichts f?r ungut!" (Engl. equivalent doesn't occur to me and you speak German I think.) Ciao, JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Hola Herman! I don't want to insult you but I suspect that you have >> taken an untenable position and don't want to admit it. To (some of) >> the points below: >> > > I feel my position is not only tenable but even stronger, correct. > Don't forget that we're on blml. This is a very select group. It is > composed of people who have not yet tired of telling Herman he is wrong. > Of course that means that there are far more on this list who will go > against me (I feel sometimes they do this regardless of what I say) than > that there are those who agree with me (some may even be afraid of > admitting so). > > Let's look at your points: > >> Declarer has two cards, one is a trump, one is not. He believes both of >> them are high. I (and almost all of the others) do not see why it would >> be irrational or not normal to play either of them. If you really >> believe in this position it would anormal to play the trump first, so be >> it; that is, you claim, your belief. No one else seems to share it and >> a few have asked if you are serious (private emails to me). I wonder >> myself. >> > > Well, first of all, he cannot believe both to be "high". A card that is > high has no others of the suit higher than itself. Of the non-trumps it > does not matter if there are lower ones. Of the trumps it does. > > So the situation in which the player believes his trumps are high is > solved by him cashing the outstanding low trumps. After that, he knows > his trumps to be "last". > > This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you > don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the > trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. > > So if you rephrase your own question: he has two cards, a high heart and > the last spade (or so he believes), then it is no longer as logical for > you to say it does not matter which he plays first. Since they are no > longer equal it is possible for us to say which one he'll play first and > last. > > Because think of it: He may believe both things to be true, but he also > knows he's not fallible. He's not going to check anything a third time, > but he knows he may have gone wrong somewhere. Now ask yourself in that > framework which card he'll play first? I'll assure you it's the > non-trump. Because if there is one trump out, he'll lose only one of his > two tricks this way, while playing the trump might result in him losing > both. Rational? Thank you. > Of course he does not believe he has gone wrong, but playing trumps in > this situation is so counter-intuitive I have called it non-normal. > >> Small trumps from both sides of the table? There are no both sides of >> the table in the case I posed. He has 2 cards and must play one of them. >> Are you trying to confuse matters by suddenly introducing an >> irrelevant "both sides of the table"? >> > > I meant dummy - which held another trump in the example I gave. (there > were 2 trumps in hand and in dummy, and declarer erroneously thought > there was only one trump with defender, and he stated he's draw that > one. After which, there is one trump on both sides of the table. Again, > the line of playing both trumps is the worst one possible. And players > know that. > >> I posed the question (presented the case) on blml because it came up in >> Germany and there was some disagreement as to proper procedure. An >> inexperienced club td awarded only one trick. In the interim I have >> about 30 or 40 responses. You are, until now, the only (almost the only >> one? I may have missed something and a few did not say, discussed other >> aspects) one who does not give two tricks. But the vast majority have >> said they consider it normal to play either of the two remaining cards. >> > > And I gave a very good counter-example in which an AC of the highest > quality (including three very well-known AC members) decided like I did > (and the fact that I was one of those three does not alter anything to > that statement). > If I may speak out of committee, and if my memory does me no disservice, > this part of the decision was unanimous (as were the other parts, but > that is of no importance). > >> You may respond if you wish but I am not going to continue this >> discussion with you. You seem to take pleasure in taking controverse >> positions and then arguing about them for years and years. That >> probably has more to do with psychology, personal characteristics than >> with bridge. Ciao, with friendly greetings, hope to see you soon, JE >> > > I do not take pleasure in being alone in an ocean of people who refuse > to see that some of their positions may be challenged. I used to think > that I was talking to a bunch of reasonable people who might change > their views once the errors of their pre-held positions was explained to > them. I am beginning to think I was wrong in that. I am talking to a > group of stubborn individuals. > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 3 20:08:41 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:08:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director ruling requested. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49889639.3060503@aol.com> Hello! Here a first preliminary opinion, after skimming through your email. "...confirmed by North as Micheals to East". Why is North confirming or explaining anything? South alerted the bid and explains it. And why to East? Did they leave the table? Otherwise the explanation was to both opponents. (You state there were no screens.) And the explanation "Micheals" is insufficient; he should fully describe the convention, not just name it. Say which suits, etc. They appear to be playing Micheals but to understand it differently. This is, of course, contrary to the laws: both players must play the same system/conventions/methods. How did the TD decide what was the "correct" meaning without conv. cards? Anyway, NS have definitely violated a law or two. Problem is if it affected the result. As stated they could win 5 spades, but it is unlikely they could bid it on the sequence shown. They could win 5 hearts without a spade lead as well. There is a possibility EW have been damaged and might have bid 5 clubs had the 2 diam. bid been described as majors and in doubt the TD should decide against the ones who caused the problem (violated correct procedure). Possible that 5 clubs could be bid. Unlikely that 5 spades would be bid but 5 hearts seems possible. Depending on the view of the TD (or appeals committee) there are, I think, two (or even 3) possible decisions. One would be according to ?12, especially ?12C if one feels that there would have been a different result with correct information. This seems likely to me. The other alternative would be to penalise NS and leave the score as it stands. Or, alter the score according to ?12 and penalise NS additionally. I prefer this, or the first possibility. It would also be possibly to give an assigned score, such as 5 cl. -1 (with or without dbl.) or 5 hearts (probably -1) or some other score. Yours faithfully, JE (Jeff Easterson ) bridgeinindia schrieb: > *Hi Jackie Dawson Altschuler, > * > > *I am Dr Raghavan.P.S from Chennai city in Tamil Nadu state of India.* > > *We have a website without any advts only for Bridge for the past 8 > years. We try to cover all major tourneys of Bridge world like Bermuda, > venice, EBU, NABC, Australian Nationals etc.* > > *View the site > > http://bridgeinindia.homestead.com/bridgeinIndiawelcometext.html > * > > ** > > *We want to know, how, as a director, you would have dealt with the > problem , given as attachment? > * > > *We, as website editor, are asked to get senior directors' opinion on this.* > > *Kindly excuse us if we are disturbing you. * > > *With Regards > Dr Raghavan.P.S. > Editor at BridgeIndia.com > BridgeinIndia at gmail.com > www.BridgeIndia.com > Ph = 9940273749* > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *DIRECTOR? RULING ::-- * > > *We give below a director?s ruling for information to Bridge playing > community of the world and for academic discussion. We state that we are > publishing this, as a learning experience to all Bridge players of the > world and not as any comment or criticism. * > > * * > > *The Deal::-- Dealer West. Both Vul. * > > *No screens, no bidding boxes. No convention cards * > > * * > > *Bidding * > > *West * > > > > *North * > > > > *East * > > > > *South * > > *1 Diamond * > > > > *2D* * > > > > *X * > > > > *XX * > > *Pass * > > > > *2 Heart * > > > > *3 Club * > > > > *4 Hearts** * > > * * > > **2D was confirmed by North as "Micheals" to East. * > > ***After 4H was bid, West asked South if 2D was Majors, South said that > it as clubs and a Major. * > > *East said he was misinformed and called the director. * > > *Director proceeded to verify the facts. * > > * * > > *1. Director took North away from the table and asked for their > partnership agreement in private. * > > *2. Director looked at West hand. Also looked at South hand. * > > *3. Director said to West that the explanation stood corrected as later > explained (ie: CLUBS and HEARTS) and allowed the bidding to go on. * > > * * > > *Asked players to call him later.** Bidding stopped at 4H and the hand > was played out. 4H duly made. * > > *The full hand was * > > * * > > > > *North: * > > *? ATxxx * > > *? **KJ98x * > > *?** x * > > *? xx * > > > > * * > > *West: * > > *? xx * > > *?** xxx * > > *?** AQTx * > > *?AQxx * > > > > * * > > > > *East: * > > *? 9 * > > *? **xx * > > *? **Kxxx** * > > *? KJ98xx * > > * * > > > > *South: * > > *? KQJxx * > > *? **AQx** * > > *? **Jxxx** * > > *? x * > > > > * * > > * * > > *Director was called. West explained that he had a clear 5C bid which > goes 1 down. North said that their agreement was Micheals - both Majors. > Also pointed out the 5S makes as the cards were. South said that the way > he understood Micheals was it was the other Minor and a Major. He had > bid consistant with that assumption. * > > *Director reserved the ruling and asked the play to proceed. Director > later came back and said that the Table result stood and gave a 3 IMP > procedural penalty against NS. * > > * * > > *EW decided not to appeal the ruling for reasons not known.. * > > *We would like to know the ruling from Senior directors. * > > *Firstly what is their ruling if this occurred at their tourney? * > > *Secondly, what kind of penalty (if appropriate) should be applied to NS? * > > *Any other comments by senior directors.** * > > * * > > * * > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 3 20:23:05 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 11:23:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim law References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net><13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net><49880507.5060508@skynet.be> <9B790F0C-AD66-4819-BEEE-0FCD0B1ED291@starpower.net> Message-ID: Something I should have mentioned: L70E should have avoided the ambiguous word "any." There is no reason that the wording should not be "all normal lines..." Legal documents must be careful when using ambiguous words like "or" (inclusive or exclusive?), "either" (each of two or one of two?), and "any" (individual or multiple?) "If any speak, for him have I offended." - Shakespeare The Laws have 37 instances of the word "either." While not ambiguous, the majority could be replaced by "a" (a defender) or "an" (an opponent). At least one should be omitted altogether (L79A2). Bureaucratic language is inappropriate in the rules for a card game. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 3 21:26:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:26:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> Message-ID: Question #1. Suppose on opening lead I claim all 13 tricks but state no line of play. Will the outcome of the director decision be any different from if I concede all 13 tricks? What about this hand: Ax AKQ Kxx AQJx xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. versus.... same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. To try to answer my own questions, I think the laws treat the first two situations the same -- the declarer gets any tricks that cannot be lost by normal play. Am I missing something? As director, I will, contradictorily, give the first declarer 9 tricks and the second declarer 10. I will use number of tricks claimed to crawl inside declarer's head. The problem is, crawling inside declarer's head seems to be an important part of the claiming process, but I can't find a good justification for it in the laws. Am I missing something? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 21:49:52 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:49:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <007d01c9860c$2bd3cc40$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com><001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <007d01c9860c$2bd3cc40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4988ADF0.2080305@skynet.be> Hello Maciej, Bystry wrote: >>> >> I don't like the epithet "doves". > > If it really hurted you, I apologize. Doves are really nice birds... > No need to apologize to the birds. >> Here we are, with a minor difference of opinion. I don't let declarers >> off the hook. But I wish to give opponents tricks they can get in real >> play, no more than that. > > What is a "real play" for you? Let's leave revokes and misclicks aside, > there is a huge amount of silly errors made by the declarers everyday, even > at the top level. I saw Zmudzinski in the Vanderbilt (or Spingold) horribly > misplaying a contract which average 4-th division player would make. I saw > many other top players making similar errors. Let's go down the ladder - > finals of Polish MP Championships, I play a contract correctly (but without > any extraordinary plays), defenders make no mistake and I get over 70% > because many declarers misplayed. In our Grand Prix tournaments it is normal > to get 60-80% "for nothing", despite large number of really good players. > As you well know, silly mistakes do not happen after claims. > When I was at the start of my bridge career I thought that top players were > semi-gods - I read books and magazines in which superb plays were described > and I thought that those players made such fine plays constantly. Thanks to > BBO broadcasts I slowly came to senses, then I encountered top players at > the table and now I know that it is a myth that they do not make mistakes. > Those mistakes are rarer than in lover levels, but still frequent enough to > say that they are not irrational, but normal (even in a dictionary sense of > that word). I played against Balicki (partnering top Polish players) 3 times > in the last Slupsk Summer Congress and my average score was about 70%, not > because of extremely lucky circumstances, just because they made some errors > (Olanski misplayed one contract badly, it's possible you would give him > "just made" if he claimed instead). > > Sorry Herman, I saw too many mistakes to support mild approach to claiming. > Errors are "a salt of bridge", not superb complex plays. Denying even slight > defenders' chance for better score is unfair to them and overly favourable > to the misclaimers. If there is a 5% chance that the declarer misplays, > claim should be so decided. Take any pair and exchange randomly 1 their > bottom in 20 for a good score. You'll see that it will improve their > standings in a distance. What's more important, this change may happen in a > tournament they lost by less than 1%. And change 5% chance for 10% and > continue... > Again, mistakes do not happen after claims. It is not just revokes that are impossible after claims, also forgetting to see that one needs to overruff, and many more "small" mistakes. > Don't think that I'm against claiming. I claim very frequently myself, often > quite early. But I issue statements nearly every time, it really isn't a > waste of time. How long does it take to say "drawing trumps" or "trumps > last" etc? One second? Less? > We are not talking about correct claims here, only about false ones. The player who thought there was only one trump out there made a perfectly acceptable claim, but sadly there was a second trump out. But that's not a reason to award his opponents three tricks if we believe they would at maximum get one if the error had not occured. > Bad habits should be eradicated, not accepted. Rule against misclaimers > consistently and they will learn. Rule for them and they will misclaim > eternally. > Wrong. People do not misclaim eternally. People do make faulty claims more or less frequent. In America, if you don't say "drawing trumps", they will rule against you. In Belgium, they won't, not if it is clear to the Director that the player knew the trumps were still out. Indeed, in Belgium, we have created some problems for us Directors - but that is not the problem in this thread. Being harsh against faulty claim statements has nothing to do with this discussion. "You did not mention the last trump, so I'm ruling that you forgot it" is not the same as "You forgot the last trump, so I'm ruling that you lose three tricks". The first one is being harsh on bad claims. The second one is simply being sadistic. >> I feel that when playing it out, not a single >> table in the world will see the trumps being played. Not a single >> opponent will get this trick. > > Moonshine. Against that statement I would take any bet. Try it, contest a > claim of high cards (including trumps) against unfamiliar opponents by > saying "yeah, in what order will you play that cards?". They will say "it > doesn't matter" or "whatever". > Yeah, if you put the question so that they don't understand what is being asked of them, you might get the answer "whatever". Try it again, and ask them to play it out once, then a second time, then a third one. The fourth time they'll try the trumps first. That's my prediction. >> I don't want to give faulty claimers worse >> scores than they could have gotten when playing it out. That is not >> being a dove, that is being realistic. > > Realistic? You are protecting the claimers from the mistakes they could have > made. NO. The mistake has already been made: the trump is forgotten, and it will get a trick! What you are doing, is adding a second mistake to the problem: by having them play irrationally. Well, that's my opinion of playing trumps first. > That is not a purpose of claiming. Worse score is their fault - they > could have played 1-2 tricks more (or issue a clear statement) and decide > the outcome themselves. They didn't bother, so they get the worst of it. > They are already protected by excluding irrational ("not normal") plays, > that is enough. > And playing trumpt first _IS_ irrational! >> You are the ones that want to punish the declarer for his faulty claim. > > I don't want to punish anybody. Oh, maybe I want, I would welcome PPs for > lack of claim statements (but certainly not for mistaken claims). But it is > less important and I can live without them. I just want to deprive the > claimers of any, even the smallest chance of better score thanks to claiming > mistakenly or in an unclear situation. Why - I have explained above. > Indeed, even the smallest chance. I believe there is zero chance of claimer playing the trumps first. >> You say you are not "Burn" who is sometimes credited with very harsh >> claim rulings, and yet you award a trick that in my opinion could not be >> lost in normal play. > > Your opinion is till now against all the other contributors' opinions. Yeah. So you're all wrong. Impossible? Or just a proof that blml is a load of nincompoops? > Doesn't it make you at least uncomfortable? Wouldn't it be rational to think > about it again? Ignore David and me, but Eric, Jack, Bob, Robert, Alain, > Richard, John, Tony or Jeff (I exclude Sven because he is harsh on claims) > are not enemies of "equity" approach. Despite that they all want to give 2 > tricks to the defenders. > Are you ignoring Jens Auken and Grattan Endicott (and Naki Bruni)? >> In my opinion, yes. I agree that it is just an opinion. But I'm not a >> dove for that. > > You are. Because you are mild for a player who forgot about a high trump. > Why aren't you equally mild for a player who forgot about a small trump? I'm not mild at either - they get a trick. But not three! > Explain this inconsequence for me. I wrote in the other email - it is > possible to forget small pips, it happens quite frequently, but it's harder > to forget high ones. So you punish small and common errors, but allow for > big ones. > >> And I'm all for clarifying examples. >> This case is screaming for a clarification. >> We have one. The Tenerife appeal from the EBL >> You don't accept that as a clarification? Then please ask someone even >> higher to clarify. I'm in favour of that - and I will accept the >> decision for the sake of unity. >> In the meanwhile, I will ask the EBL AC to issue a clarification on its >> position. > > EBL AC has no power to make clarifications. That is just an ordinary AC, > like ones in Belgium, Poland, Djibouti or Aruba. Right, its quality may be > greater, but lawful status is equal. Only WBF and RAs may issue > clarifications, but in this case your favoured one would be against the > letter of the laws, which is illegal (although as Eric pointed out - it > happens). > Ehm. The EBL is two things: a RA itself, and a grouping of RAs. As such, whatever it says should carry some weight. But then again - if you are not going to believe the EBL AC, what chance does anyone got. Maciej Bystry knows best. And so Maciej Bystry is right. And of course Herman must be wrong. Sorry to say it Maciej, but your argument always seems to come down to that. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 21:53:39 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:53:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <9B790F0C-AD66-4819-BEEE-0FCD0B1ED291@starpower.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <13BF7723-15F5-48F0-AB71-178D74022FCA@starpower.net> <49880507.5060508@skynet.be> <9B790F0C-AD66-4819-BEEE-0FCD0B1ED291@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4988AED3.3060202@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > >> We are right, and Herman is Herman, so Herman is wrong. > > But Richard, Marvin, Sven, David and Eric accept the obligation, when > they put their TD hats on, to make rulings in accordance with the > consensually accepted interpretation put forth formally by relevant > authorities. What relevant authorities? Richard, Marvin, Sven, David and Eric? _I_ am the one asking here for guidance by a relevant authority. _I_ am the one here proposing guidance by some authority, but to Richard, Marvin and Eric, the EBL means nothing, and to Sven and David it does not mean enough. _I_ am the one who is sasying that we need interpretation. Those five claim they know it all. > I argue that we are right to do so, our own firmly held > views on the subject notwithstanding. Herman does not accept that > obligation, and insists on his entitlement to rule according to his > own peculiar interpretation of the law. On that point, I assert, > Herman is wrong. > And why is my interpretation wrong? Because it differs from yours? Or just because you call it peculiar. On that point, I assert, this is Herman-bashing. And I am offended. And I demand an apology. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 3 21:55:35 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 21:55:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > > As director, I will, contradictorily, give the first declarer 9 tricks and > the second declarer 10. I will use number of tricks claimed to crawl > inside declarer's head. The problem is, crawling inside declarer's head > seems to be an important part of the claiming process, but I can't find a > good justification for it in the laws. Am I missing something? > I have not studied the cases in detail, but you may well be right. Crawling inside declarer's head is, IMO, the most important part of the claim ruling process. Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 22:26:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:26:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Off-topic on 1C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Len Dixon (veteran Canberra Times bridge columnist) asked: "Playing 5M Standard (with 1C promising 3+ and 1D promising 4+ except when exactly 44 in SH and 2 in C) what proportion of 1C opening bids turn out to be of no-trump shape (2-4 in S&H, 2-5 in D&C, at most one doubleton) but with (a) too few or (b) too many HCP to open 1NT? There will be different pairs of answers for different NT opening ranges. For a start I'd be happy with 15-18, 16-18 and 15-17 for 1NT (and, let's say, 21 too strong to open 1C). I could work it out myself from first principles. But it's soooooo hot." Please cc answers to Len, ldixon at grapevine.com.au Note: One variable Len overlooked is partnership style with 4-4 in the minors. Most Canberra experts open 1C. Most ACBL experts open 1D. Michael Rosenberg idiosyncratically opens both 1C and 1D approximately 50/50 according to a complex number of rules that he has failed to disclose (but since he has also failed to disclose to his partner, Zia, it is not a partnership understanding, so Rosenberg is acting legally in accordance with Law 40A3). Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 3 22:33:17 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 21:33:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e160$@com> Crawling inside declarer's head is, IMO, the most important part of the claim ruling process. [DALB] I agree with this almost completely. I would make only one minor alteration: the word "most" should be replaced by the word "futile". David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 3 22:47:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:47:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Returning from involuntary lurk [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <006e01c98582$081d4b30$1a2d2544@craigjkd4vrl7u> Message-ID: Craig: >Hello everyone. I hope this makes it to the list. I think I finally >have the problem fixed...my posts have been bouncing for over a >year. By the way I award 2 tricks on the claim problem and can't >see why anyone would no do so...we have to assume in the absence of >statement that claimer believes all tricks are good so might be as >likely to play one card as another and rule any uncertainty against >the bad claim. Unless ACBL has changed its stripes, that's how I >was trained when certified. And as those of you who know me know, I >am a strong proponent of encouraging claims whenever possible. Richard: Welcome back, Craig. The ACBL (and even Bobby Wolff) were very stripy in 1997. http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html St Louis ACBL Appeals Casebook, Fall 1997, Case Forty-Three (Claim) The Appeal: "...South was asked why her statement wasn't 'Conceding the high trump' rather than 'I'm up'? South stated, 'I'm a smoker and I was in a hurry.'" The Committee Decision "The Committee decided that the statement 'I'm up' indicated that all four tricks were hers. Therefore playing the [last trump] SJ [first] would not be irrational and declarer would lose the last four tricks. The score was adjusted to 3S down four, minus 200 for N/S." Casebook panellist Bobby Wolff: "Another correct and sad 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 3 22:51:25 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 16:51:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1BC6C26A-E442-4FDE-9EA4-E6AA53240978@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>>> I would challenge Herman to explain to me how I have misplayed the >>>> hand. What specific error did I make that constituted a patently >>>> inferior play? >>> >>> Take this one: you have failed to guard against an enormous >>> miscount. >>> Even when you are certain, you know that you have been wrong before. >> >> How is it irrational for me to believe that I am far more likely to >> have made a "minor" miscount than an "enormous" one? How is it >> irrational for me to believe that I might be more likely have missed >> a low card than a high one? > > But it's not a question of a minor miscount or an enormous one - it's > the case of a minor setback or an enormous one. > > Take this case: > > 8 > J > JT > - > ? > ? > - > AKQ > 7 > 4 > 43 > - > > I "know" the Jacks are high and the spades (trumps) have all gone. > I also know that I might have made a mistake somewhere. > Now I could be missing > A) a red queen, > B) the spade (trump) 9, or: > C) the spade 6 > If I start by playing a red jack, then in: > case A: I will lose a trick to the red queen, but this is a trick I > will > lose always. > case B: I will lose a trick to the S9, but this is a trick I will lose > always. > case C: I will lose a trick to the S6, and I'll have dropped a trick. > If OTOH I start by playing my trump, then in > case A: I will lose either 3 or 2 tricks, depending on whether I chose > to start with the right jack or not; I will have dropped 2 or 3 > tricks; > case B: I will lose 4 tricks, three more than I should have; > case C: I will make all tricks, exactly as I should have. > > Therefore, it is a losing line to start by playing the trumps. > Now this is what I call irrational. > You might of course call it merely careless, but my point is that all > players know this instinctively, and it is the kind of carelessness > that > has been bred out of the players from an early moment. > > OK? No, not OK. Herman rebuts all comers with his own carefully constructed examples (all dependent on the assumed "last trumps" being 1-1 between declarer and dummy), bearing absolutely no resemblance to the thread case, and then attempt to generalize his particular example to support his odd general interpretation of law. If Herman believes that "trumps always last" is a valid generalization, he must be prepared to show how it applies to the examples proposed by others, not just how it applies to those examples he has constructed just to make his point. So I have not analyzed Herman's example to see how it comports with my view of the law. I intend to do so only when Herman has addressed the example I offered previously, A/A/A/2, with spades trump, the C2 high, and the opposite holding irrelevant, and has explained how it comports with his view of the law. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 3 22:56:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 13:56:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Off-topic on 1C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: richard hills wrote: > > Len Dixon (veteran Canberra Times bridge columnist) asked: > > "Playing 5M Standard (with 1C promising 3+ and 1D promising > 4+ except when exactly 44 in SH and 2 in C) ..... In ACBL land, this West-Magic opening (4=4=3=2) must be Announced as "May be short." That is very inadequate as an explanation, and maybe a 1C opening that may be short only with a specific distribution should be Alerted. At the very least, the convention should be plainly shown on the convention card. West-Magic? Only an American pro basketball fan like Danny Kleinman (who coined the term) might discern its derivation. The great players Jerry West and Magic Johnson bore numbers 44 and 32. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 3 22:59:24 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 15:59:24 -0600 Subject: [blml] Off-topic on 1C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902031359r77f2be73u9857a8706128dd4d@mail.gmail.com> Even more important than the ceiling for opening 1C with a balanced hand is to know your minimum points to open 1C. If that differs by whether it it is balanced or not, state both. Your answer might be something like this: Open most balanced 12-high hands, most 11-high with a singleton, and most 10-high with a void or two singletons. You choices on the minimum side have a big effect on the probabilities you seek. I have programs to estimate these probabilities. It is even possible to estimate these if there are not the dealer. Jerry Fusselman From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 3 23:20:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 23:20:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000601c9864d$b031fe80$1095fb80$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau .................. > > I have no objection against claims in general, but I have strong > > objections against doubtful claims being resolved in a way that > > discards possible errors the claiming player COULD have made > > had he played on instead of claiming. > > Change "could have made" to "could have made without acting > irrationally" and I'd agree entirely. Well, if he "could have acted irrationally" then I see no reason for the Director to assist him avoiding that? > > If I were to write new and simpler claim laws I would have gone > > back to the original principles: "To the extent that the claimer > > has not specified the exact card to be played the actual card > > to be played shall be determined by his opponents." > > That gets us to where any technical flaw or ambiguity in a claim > statement could trigger an adjustment to the double-dummy misere > result. If a declarer can count the remaining tricks in high cards, > do we really want to impose a Draconian adjustment for his failure to > state explicitly that he will not discard any of his winners while > running some other suit, or that he will play A2 opposite K3 by > putting the three, not the king, under the ace? I am pretty close to say "yes" to this question; it only takes him to specify the Ace and the King as two winners to avoid that misere. However, what I really want is to have opponents resolve any (real) ambiguity in the claim. > > > Such a rule will have absolutely no impact on "correct" claims, but > > it will effectively discourage questionable or doubtful claims and > > as such will work to improve the standards in bridge play. > > True, if we insist on defining a claim statement as correct only if > it precisely delineates the proposed play card by card. But I prefer > a game in which "I have the rest" is a "correct" claim if it is > apparent to everyone at the table that the claimer has the rest, not > one in which most of the rest get taken away in adjudication on a > technicality when some Secretary Bird contests an obviously good claim. I fully agree with that, and such claims hardly ever cause any problem. A satisfactory claim statement with the rules I could like to see enforced would of course then for instance be: "there are seven more tricks to play and I have seven high cards between me and dummy. There is no communication difficulty so these seven winners can be played in whatever sequence you like." Regards Sven From wjburrows at gmail.com Tue Feb 3 23:40:26 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 11:40:26 +1300 Subject: [blml] Off-topic on 1C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2a1c3a560902031440s496eca29uf4adff6bc1ca818a@mail.gmail.com> 2009/2/4 > > Len Dixon (veteran Canberra Times bridge columnist) asked: > > "Playing 5M Standard (with 1C promising 3+ and 1D promising > 4+ except when exactly 44 in SH and 2 in C) what proportion > of 1C opening bids turn out to be of no-trump shape (2-4 in > S&H, 2-5 in D&C, at most one doubleton) but with (a) too > few or (b) too many HCP to open 1NT? > > There will be different pairs of answers for different NT > opening ranges. For a start I'd be happy with 15-18, 16-18 > and 15-17 for 1NT (and, let's say, 21 too strong to open > 1C). > > I could work it out myself from first principles. But it's > soooooo hot." > > Please cc answers to Len, ldixon at grapevine.com.au > > Note: One variable Len overlooked is partnership style with > 4-4 in the minors. Most Canberra experts open 1C. Most > ACBL experts open 1D. Michael Rosenberg idiosyncratically > opens both 1C and 1D approximately 50/50 according to a > complex number of rules that he has failed to disclose (but > since he has also failed to disclose to his partner, Zia, > it is not a partnership understanding, so Rosenberg is > acting legally in accordance with Law 40A3). > > 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 I did a 1000000 hand simulation: hcp in the range 11-20 unbalanced (10 hcp ok with a six-card suit) balanced in the range 12-14 but excluding the 1NT range clubs longer than any other suit if unbalanced if four clubs then either balanced or some 4-4-4-1 if three clubs then exactly 4=4=2=3 or 4=3=3=3 or 3=4=3=3 Open 1D with 4=4 in minors 11-19 11-20 12-19 12-20 15-17 0.417 0.413 0.334 0.33 15-18 0.417 0.413 0.334 0.33 16-18 0.481 0.476 0.406 0.402 15-17 0.039 0.049 0.045 0.056 15-18 0.015 0.025 0.017 0.029 16-18 0.015 0.025 0.017 0.029 The first three rows give the frequency of a weak NT hand the last three rows give the frequency of a very strong NT hand in a 1C opening. The four columns show the numbers for various ranges of balanced hands in the 1C opening. They are actually split ranges with the various 1NT ranges excluded. Opening 1C with 4=4 in the minors the numbers became: 15-17 0.427 0.423 0.343 0.339 15-18 0.427 0.423 0.343 0.339 16-18 0.493 0.488 0.418 0.414 15-17 0.04 0.05 0.046 0.057 15-18 0.016 0.026 0.019 0.03 16-18 0.016 0.026 0.019 0.03 --- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 3 23:41:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:41:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e160$@com> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e160$@com> Message-ID: On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:33:17 -0500, David Burn wrote: > Crawling inside declarer's head is, IMO, the most important part of the > claim ruling process. > > [DALB] > > I agree with this almost completely. I would make only one minor > alteration: > the word "most" should be replaced by the word "futile". So how would you rule on the problem you snipped? Ax AKQ Kxx AQJx xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. versus.... same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 4 00:19:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 10:19:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran on the limitations of Law 74B4: >.....his PURPOSE of playing on rather than claiming was to >disconcert an opponent..... The unlimited Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid ***any*** remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Richard Hills: Of course, the word "any" means that preempts are unLawful. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at irvine.com Wed Feb 4 00:26:41 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:26:41 -0800 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:19:06 +1100." Message-ID: <200902032318.PAA07996@mailhub.irvine.com> > The unlimited Law 74A2: > > "A player should carefully avoid ***any*** remark or action > that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another > player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." > > Richard Hills: > > Of course, the word "any" means that preempts are unLawful. > > :-) Hmmm, never thought of that. I can see putting this to good use. In 4H, declarer leads a low club from dummy, and holding the ace I decide to duck, and declarer wins his king. Later on, I lead the ace of clubs but declarer ruffs, since his king was stiff. This is very embarrassing to me, so I'd have to say that ruffing my ace is therefore illegal, and I ought to call the director and complain about a violation of 74A2. -- Adam From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 00:37:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 00:37:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <1BC6C26A-E442-4FDE-9EA4-E6AA53240978@starpower.net> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be> <000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be> <001101c98483$6bb86a80$43293f80$@no> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> <1BC6C26A-E442-4FDE-9EA4-E6AA53240978@starpower.net> Message-ID: <4988D557.7090100@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > No, not OK. Herman rebuts all comers with his own carefully > constructed examples (all dependent on the assumed "last trumps" > being 1-1 between declarer and dummy), bearing absolutely no > resemblance to the thread case, and then attempt to generalize his > particular example to support his odd general interpretation of law. > If Herman believes that "trumps always last" is a valid > generalization, he must be prepared to show how it applies to the > examples proposed by others, not just how it applies to those > examples he has constructed just to make his point. So I have not > analyzed Herman's example to see how it comports with my view of the > law. I intend to do so only when Herman has addressed the example I > offered previously, A/A/A/2, with spades trump, the C2 high, and the > opposite holding irrelevant, and has explained how it comports with > his view of the law. > Indeed I have constructed one example, and I have drawn a general conclusion from it. Now we can go two ways: - either you ask me to construct a second example, a third, a fourth, etc., (please tell me if you are satisfied with 100 or 1,000 examples) - or you construct one counter-example. The example you give, with AAA/T2, cannot possibly work. Since there is no possible trick for opponent to cash after being brought in with the trump, there are 3 tricks to declarer whatever the line of play. I believe that the examples all boil down to the same situation, which is the one I describe. But I may be wrong. Please prove me wrong, it is much more easier than asking to find a set of 1,000 examples. Herman. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From wjburrows at gmail.com Wed Feb 4 00:40:06 2009 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:40:06 +1300 Subject: [blml] Off-topic on 1C [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2a1c3a560902031440s496eca29uf4adff6bc1ca818a@mail.gmail.com> References: <2a1c3a560902031440s496eca29uf4adff6bc1ca818a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2a1c3a560902031540t4708ee70wf42532fec6f52e28@mail.gmail.com> 2009/2/4 Wayne Burrows : > 2009/2/4 >> >> Len Dixon (veteran Canberra Times bridge columnist) asked: >> >> "Playing 5M Standard (with 1C promising 3+ and 1D promising >> 4+ except when exactly 44 in SH and 2 in C) what proportion >> of 1C opening bids turn out to be of no-trump shape (2-4 in >> S&H, 2-5 in D&C, at most one doubleton) but with (a) too >> few or (b) too many HCP to open 1NT? >> >> There will be different pairs of answers for different NT >> opening ranges. For a start I'd be happy with 15-18, 16-18 >> and 15-17 for 1NT (and, let's say, 21 too strong to open >> 1C). >> >> I could work it out myself from first principles. But it's >> soooooo hot." >> >> Please cc answers to Len, ldixon at grapevine.com.au >> >> Note: One variable Len overlooked is partnership style with >> 4-4 in the minors. Most Canberra experts open 1C. Most >> ACBL experts open 1D. Michael Rosenberg idiosyncratically >> opens both 1C and 1D approximately 50/50 according to a >> complex number of rules that he has failed to disclose (but >> since he has also failed to disclose to his partner, Zia, >> it is not a partnership understanding, so Rosenberg is >> acting legally in accordance with Law 40A3). >> >> 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 > > > I did a 1000000 hand simulation: > > hcp in the range 11-20 unbalanced (10 hcp ok with a six-card suit) > > balanced in the range 12-14 but excluding the 1NT range Whoops I think it is obvious but I adjusted this to optionally include 11 HCP balanced openings. -- Wayne Burrows Palmerston North New Zealand From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 4 00:41:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 00:41:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e160$@com> Message-ID: <000701c98659$00aed940$020c8bc0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > So how would you rule on the problem you snipped? > > Ax > AKQ > Kxx > AQJx > > xxx > xx > Qxx > Kxxxx > > The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. 9 tricks - claimer has indicated that he will cash his three winners in hearts, the Ace of spades and his five winners in clubs. After that opponents will take the rest. > versus.... > > same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. 10 tricks - claimer has indicated that he will establish a trick in Diamonds before cashing his other winners. Note: I consider these rulings according to current laws. I should prefer a requirement on the claimer to explicitly specify that he will establish his diamond trick first. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 4 01:04:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 01:04:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> Message-ID: <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran on the limitations of Law 74B4: > > >.....his PURPOSE of playing on rather than claiming was to > >disconcert an opponent..... > > The unlimited Law 74A2: > > "A player should carefully avoid ***any*** remark or action > that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another > player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." > > Richard Hills: > > Of course, the word "any" means that preempts are unLawful. > > :-) Back in the thirties a serious dispute arose between the Portland Club and the ACBL of that time. The laws stated that a card in a closed hand was "exposed" if the player holding it "said something" that disclosed him holding that card. This was used as an argument by the Portland Club that asking bids were illegal because they (often) identified ("exposed") particular cards held by a player. The dispute was eventually settled by establishing the general principle in the laws that "saying something" never included spoken calls that are otherwise legal according to the bridge laws. I think we can safely consider this principle as a precedent that "remark" or "action" in Law 74 does not include activities otherwise legal according to law. Regards Sven From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 4 03:02:48 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 03:02:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be><002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <005401c9866c$add558c0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Bystry wrote: > > > > So why doesn't he claim with a statement "trump(s) last"? It is a perfect > > safeguard. He fails to make it, so he'd probably fail to make a safety play. > > > > He makes no such statement because he believes that to be "normal". Like > he doesn't say "drawing trumps" when claiming seven spades at trick one, > holding 11 trumps wfrom AK and two aces. In my opinion the great majority of players never thought about the order in which they would play their certain winners, so they neither believe that to be "normal" nor "not normal". Try this - ask 20 random players the following question "in which order would you play your cards which you are sure are high, does it make any difference whether one of them is the last trump?". I predict mainly such answers: "I never thought about it, does it matter?", "stupid question", "whatever", "why should I play them? I'll claim. It makes no difference anyway" etc. Then ask "would you find it irrational to play the trump first?". You'll see that all of them will say "no, if all are winners, it is normal to play them in any order". As to your example, I'm always saying "drawing trumps" as many other players. That doesn't mean I would rule against the claimer, I wouldn't. But... My friend (solid player) had the following accident - he was playing 5S at IMPs, he had two sure losers and 11 trumps (6-5) without two small. He hurried to play an Ace, "saw" the opponents following and claimed 11 tricks. Actually those "spades" from the opponents were a spade and a club. So he had to swallow one down (they were able to ruff his side winner). As you can see silly mistakes happen. I know we can't always enforce them on the misclaimers, but we should be very careful in choosing lines which are "not normal". > As for your second statement: "so he'd probably fail to make a safety > play." Why do you consider it probable for a player to play differently > than "trumps last"? You have just made a major leap - in another post > you say that maybe 5% of players would not play that way - now it's > "probable"? Because he did not say it? Twisting my arguments won't help you. I wrote that even if only 5% of the players cashed their trump first, it would be enough to deny "not normal" interpretation. In my opinion this percentage would be much higher, depending on exact cards, level of certainty, random selection of a card. > > Now tell me, what would you decide if the claimer's remaining cards were T > > (trump suit) 7 ? He would be sure these are winners and claim without a > > statement. Do you still maintain that forgetting about 8 of the other suit > > is more probable than forgetting about trump honor? > > No, of course not! All forgettings are equally probable, but the cost of > playing a trump first (if that is the mistake made) is huge compared to > the cost of playing side suits first, when still holding trumps in order > to get back in. "All forgettings are equally probable"? Rethink it, Herman. This is not an argument worthy of you. Second part is right, "risk" is usually higher. But ignoring this "risk" (it is extremely small in the mind of the claimer) is certainly not irrational, at most inferior or careless. Look, playing trumps as first may win sometimes (if the player was mistaken and his side card wasn't high - the opponents may misdiscard). Now take classic example ATxx to KQ9xx. Playing the King or Queen is *always* better than playing the Ace, playing the Ace never wins anything, but nevertheless we judge it to be merely careless, not irrational, even for top players. Here the player is under circa 5% risk of going down. The risk of losing anything by playing trumps as first is maybe 0,05%, maybe 0,005%, maybe less. Yet you want to say that it is "not normal" to ignore such a small risk. Sorry, but "irrational" is not a synonim of "always worse". Many players misjudge the probabilities, fail to see better lines etc. Their plays are not "irrational", merely "inferior". > > You'll say that he > > cannot gain by playing trump first, but he can. The opponents may throw out > > forgotten higher card of a side suit. So is it still "not normal" to play > > trump T before side seven? I would have a hard time finding anyone > > (excluding total beginners) who would be unsure on the 10th trick whether > > all the trump honors were played. So for this player playing trump really > > cannot lose, but it can gain (although rarely). > > > > If you decide this case as all of us, then where is the border? If you > > remain at your position, then what with A (trump suit) 2? Is it still "not > > normal" to play a trump Ace? Sorry, but that wouldn't be simply illogical, > > that would be absurd. So "trumps last" is not a valid, logical rule. The > > lawmakers may regulate so, but that way they will only artificially (without > > bridge or logical cause) save those misclaimers who forgot about a high > > trump, punishing those who forgot about a small one. Give me one reason why > > should it be so. > > > > Sorry Maciej, but I don't understand this last point. Of course someone > who forgets about a low trump will see that trump being made by the > opponents. But so will the declarer who has forgotten about a high trump > - he shall lose one trick to it. He won't lose anything. He always had one trick less than he thought. But the first one will lose an *additional*, *unnecessary* trick. That's the difference. > Because they are both in the exact same situation, they both "know" that > there are no more trumps out. And they are both wrong, and they should > both suffer, by having one of their tricks unexpectedly being ruffed. Herman, I have 6 tricks of the last 7, but I forgot about a high trump. So I misclaim 7 tricks. Now the opponents call the TD and Herman comes. He judges "trumps are played last", so gives them one trick. I still have my 6. In which f***** way do I suffer? > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 4 03:05:57 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 03:05:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl><49887CE1.7010001@skynet.be> <4988826A.2010108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <006301c9866d$1eb67100$15844c59@chello.pl> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Bystry wrote: > >>> This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you >>> don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the >>> trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. >>> >> Your logic is faulty. "Last" trump is a "high" trump because it "has no >> others of the suit higher than itself" (your own words). Anyway, look at the >> end. >> >> > > Maciej, what you are saying is that you agree two things are different > but the difference doesn't matter, so you call them the same. > Are you really suggesting that a trump is the same thing as a side-suit > card? > AG : I'm afraid you didn't understand Maciej's point. If we define (as most would do) a "high" card as one that is higher than any card of the same suit held by any other player (said otherwise : you won't find any higher card in some other hand), then the last card of a suit is always "high". There is a difference, in the fact that a last card si always high but a high card isn't always last, but if the question is "is that last card high ?", the answer is positive. It's as you didn't want to allow a square to be a rectangle. [Maciej] Thanks Alain. But I'm losing hope that Herman will admit his mistake in logic. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 4 03:05:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:05:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Herman De Wael demanded an apology from Eric Landau: >And why is my interpretation wrong? Because it differs from yours? >Or just because you call it peculiar. > >On that point, I assert, this is Herman-bashing. > >And I am offended. > >And I demand an apology. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: peculiar, a. belonging to the individual (e.g. his peculiar charm). peculiarity, n. individual characteristic, oddity. Jeff Easterson: >>.....In the correspondence I have had (blml and privately from >>other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have been about >>30-35 others..... Richard Hills: The peculiar charm of Herman De Wael is that his views on what the current Claim Laws require happen to be an oddity amongst 30-odd other blmlers and Directors. Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861) "The Latest Decalogue" (modified): Thou shalt have Herman only; who Would be at the expense of two? No graven images may be Worshipp'd, except His 2001 AC. Swear not at Herman, for at thy curse He complains of "Herman-bashing" worse. De Wael on Sunday to attend, Read week-days too, words without end. Honour thy Herman, that is all; Since others "stubbornly" pratfall. Thou shalt not kill-file, but need'st not strive Officiously to keep God alive. Do not apology commit God does not reciprocate it. Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat When it's so lucrative to cheat. Bear not false witness; let the ly- Ing claim on its own wings to fly. Thou shalt not covet, but tradition Approves "Laws guru" competition. Best wishes Richard Hills, Laws guru, and Primus inter pares of the Bridge Laws Mailing List -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Wed Feb 4 03:57:59 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:57:59 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> References: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> Message-ID: <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> I don't often agree with Herman de Wael but I do feel that some BLMLers are rudely dismissive of his views. For example, it is amusing how some directors, called about a faulty claim, rule so inconsistently - They strictly apply tithe law, refusing to let a beginner cash the ace of trumps before his other aces (although in practice, they know that he almost certainly would do so). - But they out-Herman Herman, allowing an expert (who has obviously completely lost the place and is a trick short of his claim), to recover by cashing the SA first so that he can profit from a squeeze in this kind of position .......... S:2 .......... H:AJ H:KQ D:A .......... S:A .......... H:2 .......... D:K From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 4 04:03:43 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 22:03:43 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 10:57:41 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 1, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > >> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite >> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal >> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good >> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But >> there was no "original clarification statement." > > That's just silly. Sure, "any" can be one of the more ambiguous > words in the English language. Amedican Heritage gives both "one, no > matter which, from three or more" and "every" as valid definitions. > Is anyone other than Marvin in serious doubt as to which the authors > of the law intended? I volunteered to paraphrase the law if Eric did not. I too think no one doubts what the authors of the law intended. My effort: Suppose we are considering several different lines of play. In one of them, a defnder shows out in hearts. In that particular line of play, the declarer can take the heart finesse. This does not allow the heart finesse to be taken in other lines of play. Good enough? The actual law: "...or would subsequently fail to folow to that suit on any normal line of play"... "that given" just needs to replace "any". That replacement, of course, is contrary to any meaning of "any". For example, you would not say in English, "You will be allowed to marry Gertrude if any woman accepts your marriage proposal." From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 4 04:45:51 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 04:45:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com><001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be><007d01c9860c$2bd3cc40$15844c59@chello.pl> <4988ADF0.2080305@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006b01c9867b$135c8660$15844c59@chello.pl> > As you well know, silly mistakes do not happen after claims. I know no such thing. > Again, mistakes do not happen after claims. That statement is even crazier that the one above. > It is not just revokes that are impossible after claims, also forgetting > to see that one needs to overruff, and many more "small" mistakes. Forgetting to see that one needs to overruff is a *gross* error, irrational one, certainly not "small". As to "and many more "small" mistakes.", crazier that both above. Now, quote the law which says that the claimer is deemed to play error-free after the misclaim or without a claim statement. > We are not talking about correct claims here, only about false ones. > The player who thought there was only one trump out there made a > perfectly acceptable claim, but sadly there was a second trump out. > But that's not a reason to award his opponents three tricks if we > believe they would at maximum get one if the error had not occured. "If we believe" - that's the crux of the matter. It is common thinking of "equity" supporters - they "believe" that the result without the infraction/mistake would be probably such and such, so they impose that result. I maintain my opinion - EBL AC members thought that the misclaimer would probably make his contract, so they wanted to give that result. In order to stay within the borders of the law they invented a "rule" which you are now defending so strongly. That player was silly enough to miscount trumps in EC, he caused troubles for his opponents, for a TD and for the AC. He changed his version of facts, just to try everything to get his contract back (let's name it straightly, at least once he lied - to the TD or to the AC). Yet you (EBL AC) felt compassion for him and awarded him with a result he would get without making any mistake. Yet you deprived his innocent opponents of the real chance to get their top, even if that chance was as small as, say, 15%. Sorry, whatever you will say, playing sure winners in any random order is not irrational, nor is it irrational to choose 2 Euro instead of 2 Euro, even if the second one looks nicely and the first one not. > > Bad habits should be eradicated, not accepted. Rule against misclaimers > > consistently and they will learn. Rule for them and they will misclaim > > eternally. > > > > Wrong. People do not misclaim eternally. > People do make faulty claims more or less frequent. Wrong? Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give PPs. But once that player overdid, he failed to draw back the card in a right moment, the opponents called a TD and he ruled that the card "was in position...", so it was played. It resulted in a cold zero and falling from the second place to 7th or 8th (I don't remeber exactly). Since then that player carefully chooses the card which he wants to play. You gave an example of Belgian players who don't bother to make claim statements. But have you thought why is it so? Simple - Belgian TDs are not ruling against them, it is enough. 15-20 adverse rulings and the players will suddenly respect the correct procedure. > "You did not mention the last trump, so I'm ruling that you forgot it" > is not the same as > "You forgot the last trump, so I'm ruling that you lose three tricks". > > The first one is being harsh on bad claims. The second one is simply > being sadistic. First - not three tricks, but two. One of them belonged to the opponents. Second - there is nothing "sadistic" in deciding that the player will cash his high cards in a random order. Let's say that the player has K A A in NT contract and believes all are high. He claims, but it appears he forgot about an Ace (in a suit of his King). Now you would give three tricks to the defenders without any doubt, right? So even if you remain deluded that the last trumps are not high cards, you have to admit that we don't want to be overly harsh, we simply understand "not normal" differently from you. > > Realistic? You are protecting the claimers from the mistakes they could have > > made. > > NO. The mistake has already been made: the trump is forgotten, and it > will get a trick! It would get a trick whether it was forgotten or not. > What you are doing, is adding a second mistake to the problem: by having > them play irrationally. Well, that's my opinion of playing trumps first. That claimer has just forgotten about a high trump. It is very rare and a proof for a temporary loss of mind. But still you want him to behave extremely carefully and safely when cashing his sure winners? Somebody who just played like Mrs. Guggenheim doesn't suddenly become Meckstroth just because he claims. > And playing trumpt first _IS_ irrational! I wholeheartedly agree. Trumpts should be played as last, because then they count as two tricks each. Sorry, couldn't resist. Think about "careless" ATxx KQ9xx example, maybe you'll change your mind. > Yeah, if you put the question so that they don't understand what is > being asked of them, you might get the answer "whatever". Try it again, > and ask them to play it out once, then a second time, then a third one. > The fourth time they'll try the trumps first. That's my prediction. and > Indeed, even the smallest chance. I believe there is zero chance of > claimer playing the trumps first. So, you predict that the player will play randomly 3/4 times (if he was forced to cash his winners four times, this proportion would change). And later you state that there is a zero chance of playing trumps as first? And what if for this claimer from EBL case it was a first time he had to cash his winners without claiming? Quite possible, don't you think? > > Your opinion is till now against all the other contributors' opinions. > > Yeah. So you're all wrong. Impossible? Or just a proof that blml is a > load of nincompoops? The majority is not always right. But remember that we are discussing whether something is "normal" for a class of player or not. You have the opinions of 20 or so contributors of different bridge levels stating that for them it is quite normal. It wouldn't even cross my mind to think about playing sure winners, I trust my memory and observations and do not search for trump lurkers, do not protect against forgetting high ones. And I'm sure many players share my views. > > Doesn't it make you at least uncomfortable? Wouldn't it be rational to think > > about it again? Ignore David and me, but Eric, Jack, Bob, Robert, Alain, > > Richard, John, Tony or Jeff (I exclude Sven because he is harsh on claims) > > are not enemies of "equity" approach. Despite that they all want to give 2 > > tricks to the defenders. > > > > Are you ignoring Jens Auken and Grattan Endicott (and Naki Bruni)? No. But I didn't hear their opinions (Grattan was evasive when this case was talked about on BLML). They could have different motivations, one of them could swim with the tide and so on. But even if all of them were of the same, strong opinion, bah, even if 50% of bridge people were of that opinion, it still doesn't make something "irrational". It is too strong word, it means that every man (excluding loony bin's "crew") has to admit th at something was very silly and he wouldn't do something like that consciously. > >> In my opinion, yes. I agree that it is just an opinion. But I'm not a > >> dove for that. > > > > You are. Because you are mild for a player who forgot about a high trump. > > Why aren't you equally mild for a player who forgot about a small trump? > > I'm not mild at either - they get a trick. But not three! Words fail me. They get a trick because it belongs to them. High trumps take tricks with legal plays, right? You are certainly not mild, stating that the opponents of the misclaimer will get their sure trick because of your generosity. They will be gracious for ever and a day. > > EBL AC has no power to make clarifications. That is just an ordinary AC, > > like ones in Belgium, Poland, Djibouti or Aruba. Right, its quality may be > > greater, but lawful status is equal. Only WBF and RAs may issue > > clarifications, but in this case your favoured one would be against the > > letter of the laws, which is illegal (although as Eric pointed out - it > > happens). > > > > Ehm. The EBL is two things: a RA itself, and a grouping of RAs. As such, > whatever it says should carry some weight. EBL - yes, when regulating something (not contrary to the laws) for EBL tournaments. EBL AC - no. It is an ordinary AC, only named "EBL AC". > But then again - if you are not going to believe the EBL AC, what chance > does anyone got. Maciej Bystry knows best. And so Maciej Bystry is > right. And of course Herman must be wrong. > Sorry to say it Maciej, but your argument always seems to come down to that. If I didn't know you from past discussions, I would feel deeply offended. I'm patiently responding to all your arguments, sometimes repeated more than once. I'm trying to present my own logical reasoning, supported by examples. I'm proposing polls to prove it to you that you're wrong in your appraisal of player's opinions. I'm constantly stressing the importance of the wording of the laws. Against my own interest, wasting my time, I still try to convince you to change your mind, not for my sake, not for your sake, but for the sake of the opponents of the faulty claimers who will have you as a TD. Yet you are again making a victim of yourself, bashed by bad Maciej who only has his own self-admirance as an argument. Watch out! Herman is not wrong! Herman is right! Herman is right in writing "And so Maciej Bystry is right. And of course Herman must be wrong.". Our discussion has ended. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 4 05:33:42 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:33:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> <49885355.2060109@skynet.be><001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <498878CA.9050309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> > *high* cards, I agree. > My point is that trumps are not *high*, they are *last*. > And until you understand that there is a difference, this discussion is > not important. "Last" cards in any suit (including trumps) are "high" too. Until you understand there is no difference, this discussion is pointless. > > Elementary logic, mathematics, bridge rules support us. > > Yes, elementary logic suggests that there is no difference between one > *high* card and another. But the same elementary logic suggests that > there is a difference between a high heart and a last trump. There is none. Ace of hearts has exactly the same value as 2 of spades if all the other spades were played. The claimer is *sure* that he has only winners. If he had any, even the smallest, doubt he could continue playing or say "trump last". Why are you so stubborn in imposing doubt on him if he has none himself? > So don't belittle me by trying to make it seem as if I'm going against > elementary logic. Ridiculising others' arguments doesn't make you win > polemics. Herman, you are arguing against elementary logic. We have a very specific situation - remaining sure (in the mind of the player) good cards. It is not comparable to other situations in which there are still tricks to lose, in which the player is unsure, in which the player has to crossruff or whatever. You are drawing conclusions from those incomparable situations and trying to use them to support your opinion about totally different case. Look, I can follow your line of discussion and say that many players draw trumps to force bad discards from teh defenders, so they will draw trumps if they have only winners. That's the same kind of logic that you are trying to apply. It is a faulty logic. The player in our case, by claiming, is in fact saying "all my cards will take a trick, whenever played". He is not saying "all my cards will probably take a trick, but I'm not sure, maybe I forgot something, so obviously trumps will be played as last". If he thought so, he would issue a statement - "trumps last". It is even shorter than "rest is mine". > > Even if > > 5% of the players would play trumps first, it would be "normal" and would > > have to be imposed on the misclaimer. > > Yes indeed. But ask yourself - why would someone play trumps first? Because it doesn't matter what he will play. He may draw cards randomly - the same outcome. > is that situation compatible with the one we are talking of - of a > player who knows trumps to be *last* - not *high*? I'm tired. Again, "last" card in any suit is equally "high". Not all "high" cards are "last", true, but it doesn't matter in this situation. 2 of trumps will take a trick and an Ace of hearts will take a trick. Both tricks are equally valuable, both are sure, because the claimer is sure he counted correctly. If he wasn't, he would say so. > I've never seen anyone draw more than one trumpt "to make certain". Sure, trumpts count as two tricks when played at the end (again the same silly joke, sorry). But I have seen such plays thousands of times, drawing long trumps to force discards. > My point entirely. These people are 100% certain, and still they know > that they have been 100% certain before, and were still mistaken. > It does not influence them to refrain from claiming (after all, they are > 100% certain), but it does constitute their "frame of mind". I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the players, who lost tricks due to miscounting trumps, will become careful? I agree, they will claim saying "I'll check for lurking trumps" having high ones left and "trumps last" having small ones left. Completely correct and by ruling against the claimer who makes no statement we will achieve that. Heaven on Earth. > > The player who observed and counted played cards carefully and is > > subjectively sure that his remaining ones are high won't waste the time and > > energy to think again and wonder whether he forgot something or not. He just > > claims, being sure that there is no problem. If the claims were forbidden, > > he would play his remaining cards quickly in a random order, irritated that > > he has to waste his time. > > > > Indeed. But how would he play his cards in random order? > I maintain that he would not chose a fully random order, but one in > which the non-trumps are played first, in some random suit order, and > top-down within the suits. > It's an elementary safe-guard, which has been engrained into him from > very early on. Top-down - I agree, it is simply convenient, usual and protects from silly mistakes (although I know some players who behave differently, one is *always* cashing King from AK first). It is a rule which is used consistently in most countries, I think. But "trumps last"? There are no established rules regarding trumps. Yes, beginners tend to draw them as soon as possible, but better players handle trump suit differently depending on the situation. Sometimes they have to be drawn instantly, sometimes not at all. Sometimes they are left to protect (e.g. establishing a side suit), sometimes they are cashed to force discards or to squeeze the opponents. There is no, one, fully common, rule which we can apply. So there is no reason to artificially create such rule, contrary to the logic and fairness to the opponents of the misclaimers. > Herman. Regards Maciej From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 4 06:01:55 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:01:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> References: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <200902040502.n1451xav022509@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 01:57 PM 4/02/2009, you wrote: >I don't often agree with Herman de Wael but I do feel that some BLMLers >are rudely dismissive of his views. > >For example, it is amusing how some directors, called about a faulty >claim, rule so inconsistently >- They strictly apply tithe law, refusing to let a beginner cash the ace >of trumps before his other aces (although in practice, they know that he >almost certainly would do so). >- But they out-Herman Herman, allowing an expert (who has obviously >completely lost the place and is a trick short of his claim), to recover >by cashing the SA first so that he can profit from a squeeze in this >kind of position >.......... S:2 >.......... H:AJ >H:KQ >D:A >.......... S:A >.......... H:2 >.......... D:K > Really? I find this hard to believe. I think Herman and I would rule the same way here, and again I say don't try this with me Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 4 07:01:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 17:01:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". Scenario One trump suit Dummy KQT98 LHO RHO --- J432 Declarer A765 How would you rule if declarer was: (a) Mrs Guggenheim? (b) The Unlucky Expert? Scenario Two trump suit Dummy KQT98 LHO RHO J432 --- Declarer A765 How would you rule if declarer was: (a) Mrs Guggenheim? (b) The Unlucky Expert? 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 Wed Feb 4 07:41:23 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:41:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200902040641.n146fSDI013167@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:01 PM 4/02/2009, you wrote: >Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the >side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with >the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > >Scenario One trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 >LHO RHO >--- J432 > Declarer > A765 > >How would you rule if declarer was: > >(a) Mrs Guggenheim? > >(b) The Unlucky Expert? (c) Tony Musgrove, self concedes 1off (the Masochist) >Scenario Two trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 >LHO RHO >J432 --- > Declarer > A765 > >How would you rule if declarer was: > >(a) Mrs Guggenheim? > >(b) The Unlucky Expert? (c) Tony Musgrove, just makes, foolish East discards a red card on spade A >Best wishes > >Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged >and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 4 09:01:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 03:01:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:01:46 -0500, wrote: > > Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the > side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with > the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > > Scenario One trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > --- J432 > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > > Scenario Two trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > J432 --- > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > I saw a club player misplay this combination last week. The ordinary club player is more likely to lead the ace first than the K. But I won't give that player the first contract. There is no way to miss on the second contract. I think it goes beyond merely careless for an expert to misplay this combination. But the expert went beyond merely careless just to claim in this situation. I will crawl inside the expert's head and say that the expert did not realize that the king needed to be played first. So I won't give the expert the first contract either. I know that doesn't exactly follow the law and the AC might over-rule me. From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 4 09:10:32 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:10:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> Message-ID: On 03/02/2009, Herman De Wael wrote: > Eric Landau wrote: > >>> > >>> I would challenge Herman to explain to me how I have misplayed the > >>> hand. What specific error did I make that constituted a patently > >>> inferior play? > >> Take this one: you have failed to guard against an enormous miscount. > >> Even when you are certain, you know that you have been wrong before. > > > > How is it irrational for me to believe that I am far more likely to > > have made a "minor" miscount than an "enormous" one? How is it > > irrational for me to believe that I might be more likely have missed > > a low card than a high one? > > > > But it's not a question of a minor miscount or an enormous one - it's > the case of a minor setback or an enormous one. > > Take this case: > > 8 > J > JT > - > ? > ? > - > AKQ > 7 > 4 > 43 > - > > I "know" the Jacks are high and the spades (trumps) have all gone. > I also know that I might have made a mistake somewhere. > Now I could be missing > A) a red queen, > B) the spade (trump) 9, or: > C) the spade 6 > If I start by playing a red jack, then in: > case A: I will lose a trick to the red queen, but this is a trick I will > lose always. > case B: I will lose a trick to the S9, but this is a trick I will lose > always. > case C: I will lose a trick to the S6, and I'll have dropped a trick. > If OTOH I start by playing my trump, then in > case A: I will lose either 3 or 2 tricks, depending on whether I chose > to start with the right jack or not; I will have dropped 2 or 3 tricks; > case B: I will lose 4 tricks, three more than I should have; > case C: I will make all tricks, exactly as I should have. > > Therefore, it is a losing line to start by playing the trumps. > Now this is what I call irrational. > You might of course call it merely careless, but my point is that all > players know this instinctively, and it is the kind of carelessness that > has been bred out of the players from an early moment. > > OK? Herman. If you're not certain about this, you're not in a position to claim at all. Claiming if you don't know which cards is left is irrational! :o) However, if you do claim, you have to state the order you're gonna play your cards. Your views on this are really odd to me. And I'm of the opinion that my compatriots were allowed to make a contract they shouldn't have made in the Tenerefe appeal. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > >> Let's put it like this: You are holding nothing but high hearts and > >> diamonds, and spades (trumps) that you believe to be last. > >> You want to claim, but you are playing against notoriously angry > >> opponents, so you don't. > >> You know you have been distracted somewhere along the line, and so one > >> of your three "thoughts" might be wrong: there might be trumps out, or > >> there might be hearts or diamonds not high. (See that I had to > >> describe > >> these differently - trumps and side suits are not the same!) > >> You don't know which might happen, but a small thought will make it > >> clear that if you lose the lead through playing your trumps from both > >> sides, they will cash clubs and you'll be lots down. > >> Do you agree that it's irrational to play the trumps first? > >> > >> If your (supposedly last) trump loses because you play it, you have > >> lost > >> the lead and possibly some more tricks. > >> But if your (supposedly last) trump is not the last and they ruff > >> one of > >> your high cards - you can get in with your trump and not a lot is > >> lost. > >> > >> It is clear to see that cashing last trumps is irrational. > >> > >> But I don't want to continue this discussion - because I want to > >> have a > >> uniform set of rules, which deals with this case. I want the WBF to > >> pronounce itself, and all the director's noses be turned in the same > >> direction - so this discussion need not be repeated! > >> > >>> It cannot possibly make any sense whatsoever to assert that I have > >>> played the hand "irrationally" without having committed any > >>> demonstrable error or misplay. > >> Well, have I demonstrated it? > > > > Not at all. In my original example, if I knew that that trump was > > still out, it would be irrational for me to play in any way other > > than I did. So how can it possibly be irrational to play this way > > when I believe it doesn't matter? How can it ever be "wrong" to play > > the hand perfectly, even if I have done so only by dumb luck? > > > > > > Eric Landau > > 1107 Dale Drive > > Silver Spring MD 20910 > > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > blml mailing list > > blml at amsterdamned.org > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 4 09:59:12 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:59:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e160$@com> Message-ID: <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:33:17 -0500, David Burn > wrote: > > >> Crawling inside declarer's head is, IMO, the most important part of the >> claim ruling process. >> >> [DALB] >> >> I agree with this almost completely. I would make only one minor >> alteration: >> the word "most" should be replaced by the word "futile". >> > > So how would you rule on the problem you snipped? > > Ax > AKQ > Kxx > AQJx > > xxx > xx > Qxx > Kxxxx > > The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. > AG : I give him 9 tricks. No rational line would yield less than that. > versus.... > > same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. > AG : he has 5 seconds to explain me how he intends to make them. No doubt he'll succeed. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 4 10:05:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:05:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49895A71.9060907@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the > side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with > the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > > Scenario One trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > --- J432 > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > > Scenario Two trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > J432 --- > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > AG : in exactly the first position, it was ruled, 15 years ago, in Belgium, that declarer wouldn't err. This being the last stage of the Belgian pairs Championships. I didn't agree, first because declarer wasn't a sound player (he still isn't), and second because if you know the game, you just say "spade king, 13 tricks". When you don't, there is a hint that you don't. Ergo, one off, because the guy who's careless enough not to state his line is careless enough not to have seen the problem. In the second position, however, it would be irrational not to finesse after seeing the first trick. 'Careless' doesn't include 'blind'. 13 tricks. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 10:28:02 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:28:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49895FA2.6000801@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Herman De Wael demanded an apology from Eric Landau: > >> And why is my interpretation wrong? Because it differs from yours? >> Or just because you call it peculiar. >> >> On that point, I assert, this is Herman-bashing. >> >> And I am offended. >> >> And I demand an apology. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > peculiar, a. belonging to the individual (e.g. his peculiar charm). > peculiarity, n. individual characteristic, oddity. > > Jeff Easterson: > >>> .....In the correspondence I have had (blml and privately from >>> other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have been about >>> 30-35 others..... > > Richard Hills: > > The peculiar charm of Herman De Wael is that his views on what the > current Claim Laws require happen to be an oddity amongst 30-odd > other blmlers and Directors. > I have since privately received message about at least one senior director agreeing with me - and then there are at least 3 AC members of 2001. Anyway, if the only reason you feel I am wrong is because I am at a minority, that argument is totally invalid, and I categorise it as Herman-bashing. Come up with serious arguments and don't belittle me. I've tried to come up with arguments, not ridicule. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 4 10:27:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:27:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim Message-ID: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Dummy has 874 of hearts and some high cards. There is still one trump outside, the 6. Declarer needs all remaining tricks. (NB : recent, live case) a) Declarer says 'Heart.. Just made'. Should we allow him his contract, based on the assumption that it would be irrational to play a small heart ? b) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he knows about the H6, but has miscounted his tricks) It would still bne irrational to play the small heart, but he did claim one off. Does it change anything ? c) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he thinks his hearts are equal and the outstanding trump is the 9) Do we assume he played the 4 ? d) I guess that those who say assessing claims includes reading declarer's mind would decide differently on b) and c). But how do they ascertain which is true ? NB : the actual case is slightly different. My pazrtner said 'Heart 8' and wrote down one off, but since he couldn't go down after that, he scored his contract. Careful claims are useful, even when wrong. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 10:34:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:34:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <4985D631.7020806@skynet.be> <001301c984a8$09cafd40$1d60f7c0$@no> <4986AC59.3020303@skynet.be> <000c01c98525$1492a9d0$3db7fd70$@no> <4986F814.7000508@skynet.be> <6F62BBBF-7EBA-46D7-AFA5-8F3BDFEFB482@starpower.net> <49880087.6010405@skynet.be> <49B50090-638E-471C-A9BD-FF3E7625473B@starpower.net> <49887C6D.50405@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49896116.2060208@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > Herman. If you're not certain about this, you're not in a position to > claim at all. Claiming if you don't know which cards is left is > irrational! :o) Harald, the player is certain. I was trying to prove that the line of cashing trumps last is rationally a better one. By looking at the player who is certain but knows he is never 100% right. But all I was trying to do is show you that a rule like "trumps last" has a good foundation. And like "play the honour from the short side first", it is a rule that beginners learn and bridgers never abandon. Especially since there is no reason to abandon it. So this rule is both rational and common. Which is why I want to call it "normal", and the reverse "not-normal". > However, if you do claim, you have to state the order you're gonna > play your cards. Unimportant. Since you are certain, there is no need to say this things. When it turns out you were mistaken, you shall suffer the worst of all normal lines. I consider the line of playng trumps first not normal. > Your views on this are really odd to me. And I'm of the opinion that > my compatriots were allowed to make a contract they shouldn't have > made in the Tenerefe appeal. > I think it was the other way round, but I might be mistaken. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 10:52:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:52:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <005401c9866c$add558c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be><002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <005401c9866c$add558c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49896566.6010003@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > My friend (solid player) had the following accident - he was playing 5S at > IMPs, he had two sure losers and 11 trumps (6-5) without two small. He > hurried to play an Ace, "saw" the opponents following and claimed 11 tricks. > Actually those "spades" from the opponents were a spade and a club. So he > had to swallow one down (they were able to ruff his side winner). As you can > see silly mistakes happen. I know we can't always enforce them on the > misclaimers, but we should be very careful in choosing lines which are "not > normal". > Maciej, you know as well as I do that if we were to impose this carelessness on a claim, then all claims will fail to meet the criteria. Yes, abnormal things happen. That should not deter us from ruling that abnormal things do not happen after claims. Which is why we need guidance on what is normal and not normal. None of your post is an argument as to why "trumps first" should be considered normal. >> As for your second statement: "so he'd probably fail to make a safety >> play." Why do you consider it probable for a player to play differently >> than "trumps last"? You have just made a major leap - in another post >> you say that maybe 5% of players would not play that way - now it's >> "probable"? Because he did not say it? > > Twisting my arguments won't help you. I wrote that even if only 5% of the > players cashed their trump first, it would be enough to deny "not normal" > interpretation. In my opinion this percentage would be much higher, > depending on exact cards, level of certainty, random selection of a card. > But anyway - 5% or probable is a long way off. Especially when I say it's no-one. >>> Now tell me, what would you decide if the claimer's remaining cards were > T >>> (trump suit) 7 ? He would be sure these are winners and claim without a >>> statement. Do you still maintain that forgetting about 8 of the other > suit >>> is more probable than forgetting about trump honor? >> No, of course not! All forgettings are equally probable, but the cost of >> playing a trump first (if that is the mistake made) is huge compared to >> the cost of playing side suits first, when still holding trumps in order >> to get back in. > > "All forgettings are equally probable"? Rethink it, Herman. This is not an > argument worthy of you. > > Second part is right, "risk" is usually higher. But ignoring this "risk" (it > is extremely small in the mind of the claimer) is certainly not irrational, > at most inferior or careless. > I agree - but my argument is not based on what risk the player feels there is, but on what he does instinctively - an instinct borne out of an analysis of the risk we are speaking of. > Look, playing trumps as first may win sometimes (if the player was mistaken > and his side card wasn't high - the opponents may misdiscard). Now take > classic example ATxx to KQ9xx. Playing the King or Queen is *always* better > than playing the Ace, playing the Ace never wins anything, but nevertheless > we judge it to be merely careless, not irrational, even for top players. Would you? I wouldn't. If a player claims and says "I can pick up the hearts", the I'll rule that it is irrational for him to play the ace first. > Here the player is under circa 5% risk of going down. The risk of losing > anything by playing trumps as first is maybe 0,05%, maybe 0,005%, maybe > less. Yet you want to say that it is "not normal" to ignore such a small > risk. > No, I am saying that all players instinctively avoid those risks. > Sorry, but "irrational" is not a synonim of "always worse". Many players > misjudge the probabilities, fail to see better lines etc. Their plays are > not "irrational", merely "inferior". > That is true. Which is why my argument is not based on the rationality of these lines, but on the habits of players. Habits that are very hard to shake - especially since they are based on rational principles. >>> You'll say that he >>> cannot gain by playing trump first, but he can. The opponents may throw > out >>> forgotten higher card of a side suit. So is it still "not normal" to > play >>> trump T before side seven? I would have a hard time finding anyone >>> (excluding total beginners) who would be unsure on the 10th trick > whether >>> all the trump honors were played. So for this player playing trump > really >>> cannot lose, but it can gain (although rarely). >>> >>> If you decide this case as all of us, then where is the border? If you >>> remain at your position, then what with A (trump suit) 2? Is it still > "not >>> normal" to play a trump Ace? Sorry, but that wouldn't be simply > illogical, >>> that would be absurd. So "trumps last" is not a valid, logical rule. The >>> lawmakers may regulate so, but that way they will only artificially > (without >>> bridge or logical cause) save those misclaimers who forgot about a high >>> trump, punishing those who forgot about a small one. Give me one reason > why >>> should it be so. >>> >> Sorry Maciej, but I don't understand this last point. Of course someone >> who forgets about a low trump will see that trump being made by the >> opponents. But so will the declarer who has forgotten about a high trump >> - he shall lose one trick to it. > > He won't lose anything. He always had one trick less than he thought. But > the first one will lose an *additional*, *unnecessary* trick. That's the > difference. > >> Because they are both in the exact same situation, they both "know" that >> there are no more trumps out. And they are both wrong, and they should >> both suffer, by having one of their tricks unexpectedly being ruffed. > > Herman, I have 6 tricks of the last 7, but I forgot about a high trump. So I > misclaim 7 tricks. Now the opponents call the TD and Herman comes. He judges > "trumps are played last", so gives them one trick. I still have my 6. In > which f***** way do I suffer? > And why the f* should you need to suffer? This is the sadistic argument. Someone does something wrong, so he should suffer. The bridge laws are not like that. The claimer who forgets a trump will sometimes break even, and sometimes suffer an additional trick, but never gain. That should be enough for him to remember to claim more carefully. You want to make him suffer beyond what I believe to be a normal result. You are allowed to believe yours is a normal result, but you are wrong if you use the fact that he suffers more in order to prove that your result is a normal one. Keep the discussion to the point: is playing trumps first normal? >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 10:55:44 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 10:55:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4988826A.2010108@ulb.ac.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887CE1.7010001@skynet.be> <4988826A.2010108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49896620.2050600@skynet.be> Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Bystry wrote: >> >>>> This is a very important distinction and one of the reasons why you >>>> don't see the logic of my points is that you insist on calling both the >>>> trump and the non-trump "high". A trump is not "high", it is last. >>>> >>> Your logic is faulty. "Last" trump is a "high" trump because it "has no >>> others of the suit higher than itself" (your own words). Anyway, look at the >>> end. >>> >>> >> Maciej, what you are saying is that you agree two things are different >> but the difference doesn't matter, so you call them the same. >> Are you really suggesting that a trump is the same thing as a side-suit >> card? >> > AG : I'm afraid you didn't understand Maciej's point. > > If we define (as most would do) a "high" card as one that is higher than > any card of the same suit held by any other player (said otherwise : you > won't find any higher card in some other hand), then the last card of a > suit is always "high". > There is a difference, in the fact that a last card si always high but a > high card isn't always last, but if the question is "is that last card > high ?", the answer is positive. > > It's as you didn't want to allow a square to be a rectangle. > Yes Alain, I allow a square to be a rectangle. But a free trump is like a square: not only is there no card of that suit higher, but there is also no outstanding card lower! What Maciej is doing is calling all four suits rectangles, and he concludes that they are equal. What I am doing is calling trumps squares, and concluding that they are therefore not equal, since the other three suits are rectangles, not merely squares. Maciej is wrong when he criticises me for calling trumps squares, not when he calls trumps rectangles. Herman. > Best regards > > Alain. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:03:45 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:03:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> Message-ID: <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > I said I wasn't going to continue the discussion but shall violate that > promise. > > I doubt that your command of English is better than mine ("high") but > that isn't terribly relative. It is unimportant if we say "high" or > "good" or "a winner" or whatever. The meaning is clear to all. > Questioning the usage of "high" is grasping a straw and a diversion, not > relevant. > See my post somewhere else: You are absolutely right in calling high trumps the same as high side-suits. But you are wrong in deducing that this means there is no difference. There are at least two differences: 1) they are trumps and can be used to get back in 2) there are no outstanding cards of the "free" trump suit. You are right in saying trumps are just as "high" as side suits. But I am also right in saying trumps are better than "high", they are "free" (and trumps!) And so if you criticise me for saying that there is a difference between trumps and side suits, then you are wrong (in criticising me). > I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade > and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase > anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", > "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are > discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is > a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a > general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) > No, these words are not the same. "high" means there are no higher cards outstanding. "free" (indeed a better word than "last") means there are no cards outstanding. To say that they have the same meaning is simply wrong. > Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and > waste of time. I was giving an actual example from real life - that cannot be a waste of time. > Stop giving examples and deal with the problem at hand. > I clearly stated that the other two hands were irrelevant, that included > the dummy. To restate the original problem (as far as I recall, may > have confused unimportant details): declarer has the trump 6 and a high > spade (might have been a heart) and a defender has the trump 8 and a > high heart (might have been a spade). You have my permission to call > any of these cards "high", "good", "winner", "last", "master" or > whatever you like. And, I repeat, the other hands are, in this problem, > irrelevant. Declarer (claimer) claims the last two tricks (implication) > by showing his cards and saying he believes there are no more trumps > out. I understand the case completely. > The clear inference is that he believes both cards are good > (winners, high, whatever you like). That is your inference. My inference is that he believes one card to be "high" and one trump to be "free". > He makes no further statement, does > not say in which order he proposes to play these last two cards. I > shan't waste more time and space by mentioning that this is an improper, > or incomplete, claim. Your position, as I understand it, is that he > would automatically play the high (not trump) card first and that it > would not be normal (or it would be irrational?) to play the trump > first. Indeed. As one of your (adopted) countrymen put it: "in Praxis" in practice no-one plays the trump first. > That seems to be your position and I, of course, must accept it, > assume you are serious. In the correspondence I have had (blml and > privately from other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have > been about 30-35 others who say either card could normally, or possibly, > be played. A few have even been baffled and asked in unbelief what > could be the possible reason to not give the defenders 2 tricks. > > Okay, as they say in Germany at football matches, "Ende der Durchsage"; > that is, this is definitely my last attempt to discuss this. But again, > as the Germans say, "Nichts f?r ungut!" (Engl. equivalent doesn't occur > to me and you speak German I think.) Ciao, JE > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:05:41 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:05:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000601c9864d$b031fe80$1095fb80$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> <000601c9864d$b031fe80$1095fb80$@no> Message-ID: <49896875.5000503@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> That gets us to where any technical flaw or ambiguity in a claim >> statement could trigger an adjustment to the double-dummy misere >> result. If a declarer can count the remaining tricks in high cards, >> do we really want to impose a Draconian adjustment for his failure to >> state explicitly that he will not discard any of his winners while >> running some other suit, or that he will play A2 opposite K3 by >> putting the three, not the king, under the ace? > > I am pretty close to say "yes" to this question; it only takes him to > specify the Ace and the King as two winners to avoid that misere. > However, what I really want is to have opponents resolve any (real) > ambiguity in the claim. > This clearly shows that Sven has a different opinion of how the claim laws ought to be than what they really are. And maybe that opinion shines through in his discussion about the actual laws? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:07:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:07:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200902040502.n1451xav022509@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> <200902040502.n1451xav022509@mail11.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <498968F6.6020200@skynet.be> Tony Musgrove wrote: > At 01:57 PM 4/02/2009, you wrote: >> - But they out-Herman Herman, allowing an expert (who has obviously >> completely lost the place and is a trick short of his claim), to recover >> by cashing the SA first so that he can profit from a squeeze in this >> kind of position >> .......... S:2 >> .......... H:AJ >> H:KQ >> D:A >> .......... S:A >> .......... H:2 >> .......... D:K >> > > Really? I find this hard to believe. I think Herman and > I would rule the same way here, and again I say don't try > this with me > Indeed we would - but then he did say out-Herman Herman. > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:08:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:08:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> <49885355.2060109@skynet.be><001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <498878CA.9050309@skynet.be> <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49896935.6040502@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> *high* cards, I agree. >> My point is that trumps are not *high*, they are *last*. >> And until you understand that there is a difference, this discussion is >> not important. > > "Last" cards in any suit (including trumps) are "high" too. Until you > understand there is no difference, this discussion is pointless. > "High" cards in other suits are not "last". Until you admit that there is a difference between last and high, this discussion is pointless. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:09:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:09:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> <49885355.2060109@skynet.be><001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <498878CA.9050309@skynet.be> <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49896971.8020302@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > There is none. Ace of hearts has exactly the same value as 2 of spades if > all the other spades were played. Yes there is a difference. The 2 of spades (if spades are trumps) can beat the ace of diamonds, something the ace of hearts cannot do. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:10:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:10:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <006101c98603$38d86760$15844c59@chello.pl> <49885355.2060109@skynet.be><001701c98618$0ee697a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <498878CA.9050309@skynet.be> <007f01c98681$c2425500$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49896992.8080607@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: > > Herman, you are arguing against elementary logic. No Maciej, you are arguing against elementary logic. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 11:12:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:12:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <000701c98659$00aed940$020c8bc0$@no> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e160$@com> <000701c98659$00aed940$020c8bc0$@no> Message-ID: <49896A16.5000006@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> So how would you rule on the problem you snipped? >> >> Ax >> AKQ >> Kxx >> AQJx >> >> xxx >> xx >> Qxx >> Kxxxx >> >> The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. > > 9 tricks - claimer has indicated that he will cash his three winners in > hearts, the Ace of spades and his five winners in clubs. After that > opponents will take the rest. > >> versus.... >> >> same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. > > 10 tricks - claimer has indicated that he will establish a trick in Diamonds > before cashing his other winners. > > Note: I consider these rulings according to current laws. I should prefer a > requirement on the claimer to explicitly specify that he will establish his > diamond trick first. > > Regards Sven > I agree with Sven, even including the requirement. This case borders on the realm of "tell us how you play, don't let us work out something which takes us 5 seconds to see." Herman. From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 4 12:15:16 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 12:15:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Dummy has 874 of hearts and some high cards. There is still one trump > outside, the 6. Declarer needs all remaining tricks. > > (NB : recent, live case) > > a) Declarer says 'Heart.. Just made'. > Should we allow him his contract, based on the assumption that it would > be irrational to play a small heart ? > > b) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he knows about the H6, but has > miscounted his tricks) > It would still bne irrational to play the small heart, but he did claim > one off. Does it change anything ? > > c) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he thinks his hearts are equal and > the outstanding trump is the 9) > Do we assume he played the 4 ? > > d) I guess that those who say assessing claims includes reading > declarer's mind would decide differently on b) and c). But how do they > ascertain which is true ? > > NB : the actual case is slightly different. My pazrtner said 'Heart 8' > and wrote down one off, but since he couldn't go down after that, he > scored his contract. Careful claims are useful, even when wrong. When he said "Heart 8" then of course he was safe. In your four alternatives my ruling will depend on what happened in the last previous trick: If he had been playing hearts from the top and his request apparently implied "continue with the next heart" I would allow him to having played the 8. And if he was now void in hearts and had just entered dummy in a side suit for the apparent purpose of pulling the last outstanding heart I would also (normally) allow the Heart 8 to having been played. But except for these circumstances I shall rule Law 46B2: "If declarer designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card of the suit indicated." - He has played the 4. And his remark "one off" or "just made" does not matter to me here. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 4 13:02:35 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:02:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49896875.5000503@skynet.be> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> <000601c9864d$b031fe80$1095fb80$@no> <49896875.5000503@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c986c0$77a33fc0$66e9bf40$@no> Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > >> That gets us to where any technical flaw or ambiguity in a claim > >> statement could trigger an adjustment to the double-dummy misere > >> result. If a declarer can count the remaining tricks in high cards, > >> do we really want to impose a Draconian adjustment for his failure to > >> state explicitly that he will not discard any of his winners while > >> running some other suit, or that he will play A2 opposite K3 by > >> putting the three, not the king, under the ace? > > > > I am pretty close to say "yes" to this question; it only takes him to > > specify the Ace and the King as two winners to avoid that misere. > > However, what I really want is to have opponents resolve any (real) > > ambiguity in the claim. > > > > This clearly shows that Sven has a different opinion of how the claim > laws ought to be than what they really are. > And maybe that opinion shines through in his discussion about the actual > laws? The claim laws principles are very clear: Whenever the claim statement results in an ambiguity this ambiguity shall be resolved in favour of the non-claiming side. I have no wish for major changes in the claim laws, but the discussion on claims that ever so often pop up clearly shows that we need a better understanding that it is the claimer and he alone that bears the responsibility for avoiding ambiguities with his claim. The fallacy of the principles advocated by Herman should be obvious, if from nothing else then from the majority of objections to his logic on what "normal play" is and what "normal play" is not. His persisting argumentation in this respect is a clear demonstration of the need for further refinement of the claim laws. As a starter I am very unhappy with the "for the class of player" clause in the footnote to Law 70. I have seen sufficient silly mistakes by "experts" to trust them infallible, especially when they begin to get exhausted after long sessions. My preference would have been to maintain the term "irrational" while discarding the clause "class of player". Where a beginner can easily go wrong I expect an "expert" claimer to be aware of this "trap" and just safeguard himself by including in his claim statement something to show that he will avoid that error. If he doesn't I may assume that he has overlooked the "trap" and can walk straight into it - I have seen it happen. Sven From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Feb 4 13:22:28 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:22:28 -0400 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does not. I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. Jack On 2/4/09 2:01 AM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" wrote: > > Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the > side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with > the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > > Scenario One trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > --- J432 > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > > Scenario Two trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > J432 --- > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 4 13:45:01 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:45:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:22:28 -0500, Jack Rhind wrote: > In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does not. > I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. Is this because you ignore class of player when making a claim ruling? (You did not explain your answer. Why are you making this ruling?) > > Jack > > > On 2/4/09 2:01 AM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" > > wrote: > >> >> Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the >> side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with >> the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". >> >> >> Scenario One trump suit >> >> Dummy >> KQT98 >> LHO RHO >> --- J432 >> Declarer >> A765 >> >> How would you rule if declarer was: >> >> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >> >> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >> >> >> Scenario Two trump suit >> >> Dummy >> KQT98 >> LHO RHO >> J432 --- >> Declarer >> A765 >> >> How would you rule if declarer was: >> >> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >> >> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >> >> >> 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 14:16:01 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:16:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> Message-ID: <49899511.2050008@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > > But except for these circumstances I shall rule Law 46B2: "If declarer > designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card > of the suit indicated." - He has played the 4. > > And his remark "one off" or "just made" does not matter to me here. > > Regards Sven > Sven's ruling looks correct to me, but he has forgotten one thing. "Heart, one off" is not a designation that will be rule according to L46B2. It is a claim accompanied by a very short claim statement. Minor quibble, but still important. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 14:22:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:22:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000101c986c0$77a33fc0$66e9bf40$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> <000601c9864d$b031fe80$1095fb80$@no> <49896875.5000503@skynet.be> <000101c986c0$77a33fc0$66e9bf40$@no> Message-ID: <49899684.2080409@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > Of Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran wrote: >>>> That gets us to where any technical flaw or ambiguity in a claim >>>> statement could trigger an adjustment to the double-dummy misere >>>> result. If a declarer can count the remaining tricks in high cards, >>>> do we really want to impose a Draconian adjustment for his failure to >>>> state explicitly that he will not discard any of his winners while >>>> running some other suit, or that he will play A2 opposite K3 by >>>> putting the three, not the king, under the ace? >>> I am pretty close to say "yes" to this question; it only takes him to >>> specify the Ace and the King as two winners to avoid that misere. >>> However, what I really want is to have opponents resolve any (real) >>> ambiguity in the claim. >>> >> This clearly shows that Sven has a different opinion of how the claim >> laws ought to be than what they really are. >> And maybe that opinion shines through in his discussion about the actual >> laws? > > The claim laws principles are very clear: Whenever the claim statement > results in an ambiguity this ambiguity shall be resolved in favour of the > non-claiming side. > Exactly - so where is the ambguity? Surely you cannot see our discussion as an ambiguity in the decision process of this one case. IMO there is no ambiguity: claimer will not play a trump first. Yet again, Sven, an argument that sounds fine, but lacks logic. > I have no wish for major changes in the claim laws, but the discussion on > claims that ever so often pop up clearly shows that we need a better > understanding that it is the claimer and he alone that bears the > responsibility for avoiding ambiguities with his claim. > Again a wrong conclusion, Sven. Claimer need not express himself more clearly, you and I need to find a rule we can both agree upon. There is no discussion between us about the facts, and this claimer need not worry about anything. You and I must worry that there remains this gap in our common understanding of what is normal and what not. > The fallacy of the principles advocated by Herman should be obvious, if from > nothing else then from the majority of objections to his logic on what > "normal play" is and what "normal play" is not. His persisting argumentation > in this respect is a clear demonstration of the need for further refinement > of the claim laws. > Again Sven, totally wrong. Your argument translates to "Herman is wrong because there are five of us and only one of him". I don't consider that a valid argument, not unless us six are mandated by the WBF to form a committee, in which case I will gladly defer to the majority decision of that committee. > As a starter I am very unhappy with the "for the class of player" clause in > the footnote to Law 70. I have seen sufficient silly mistakes by "experts" > to trust them infallible, especially when they begin to get exhausted after > long sessions. My preference would have been to maintain the term > "irrational" while discarding the clause "class of player". > > Where a beginner can easily go wrong I expect an "expert" claimer to be > aware of this "trap" and just safeguard himself by including in his claim > statement something to show that he will avoid that error. If he doesn't I > may assume that he has overlooked the "trap" and can walk straight into it - > I have seen it happen. > Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. > Sven > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 4 14:35:06 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:35:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> Alain Gottcheiner a ?crit : > Robert Frick a ?crit : >> On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:33:17 -0500, David Burn >> wrote: >> >> >>> Crawling inside declarer's head is, IMO, the most important part >>> of the claim ruling process. >>> >>> [DALB] >>> >>> I agree with this almost completely. I would make only one minor >>> alteration: the word "most" should be replaced by the word >>> "futile". >>> >> So how would you rule on the problem you snipped? >> >> Ax AKQ Kxx AQJx >> >> xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx >> >> The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 >> tricks. >> 9 tricks to declarer. i dont try to understand why he did not want more. a pp to north for failing to count his cards >> versus.... >> >> same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. 10 tricks. if declarer didn't wish to try for 11, his problem. a pp to... jpr >> > AG : he has 5 seconds to explain me how he intends to make them. No > doubt he'll succeed. > -- _______________________________________________ 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 Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Feb 4 14:54:06 2009 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:54:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E303D@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> >> In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does not. >> I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. > > Is this because you ignore class of player when making a claim ruling? > > (You did not explain your answer. Why are you making this ruling?) I agree with "In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does not." I think for all classes of player, cashing the ace first is "careless", so included in "normal". The second scenario is covered by law 70 E1. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 4 14:55:46 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 08:55:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sorry Maciej, but I don't understand this last point. Of course > someone > who forgets about a low trump will see that trump being made by the > opponents. But so will the declarer who has forgotten about a high > trump > - he shall lose one trick to it. > Because they are both in the exact same situation, they both "know" > that > there are no more trumps out. And they are both wrong, and they should > both suffer, by having one of their tricks unexpectedly being ruffed. Herman provides a reductio ad absurdum refutation of his own argument. He is reduced to asserting that a player who will lose a trick to the high trump, which must take a trick on any line of play, is "in the exact same situation" as a player who will lose a trick to a small trump which he could have drawn, and concludes fairness from the fact that they "both suffer" equivalently. Enough said. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 4 15:02:38 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:02:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:22:28 -0500, Jack Rhind wrote: > In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does not. > I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. Is this because you ignore class of player when making a claim ruling? (You did not explain your answer. Why are you making this ruling?) > > Jack > > > On 2/4/09 2:01 AM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" > > wrote: > >> >> Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the >> side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with >> the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". >> >> >> Scenario One trump suit >> >> Dummy >> KQT98 >> LHO RHO >> --- J432 >> Declarer >> A765 >> >> How would you rule if declarer was: >> >> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >> >> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >> >> >> Scenario Two trump suit >> >> Dummy >> KQT98 >> LHO RHO >> J432 --- >> Declarer >> A765 >> >> How would you rule if declarer was: >> >> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >> >> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >> >> >> 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 nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 4 15:25:23 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:25:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4989A553.7080306@talktalk.net> Richard Hills asks: declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits and A765 of trumps in hand opposite KQT98 in dummy. Declarer wins the side suit opening lead, then claims, "Drawing trumps". How would you rule when the remaining four trumps are held by (1)RHO? (2)LHO? declarer is (a) Mrs Guggenheim? (b) The Unlucky Expert? [Nigel] In case 2b, Mrs Guggenheim may deserve the benefit of the doubt because she likes to practice finesses. In all other cases, you should rule against declarer, who appears to have miscounted and seems to imagine that the AKQ will take care of the outstanding trumps. To appreciate this, please imagine that dummy's trumps are KQJT8. Only Mrs Guggenheim would bother to finesse the eight. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Feb 4 15:37:22 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:37:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. [DALB] I have added a fifth club to the North hand for the sake of not having to answer the question "How would you rule"? in a fashion that may be considered unhelpful. It is unlikely that I would be asked to rule in this scenario anyway, but I imagine I would award nine tricks. same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. [DALB] I would rule in accordance with the Laws. Declarer repeats the statement he made at the time of his claim which was presumably "10 tricks". I would hear the defenders' objections. If they said "we can only see nine tricks", and declarer said "obviously I will set up a diamond before I release the ace of spades or the top hearts", I would rule nine tricks and tell him to include what he is "obviously" going to do in his claim statement next time. I don't know whether he was actually going to do this or whether he had simply miscounted his top tricks in the first place. And I don't care. David Burn London, England From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 4 15:38:28 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 09:38:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> Message-ID: <3C276FF2-03F7-42D9-AE77-C0C495A2000C@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:26 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Question #1. Suppose on opening lead I claim all 13 tricks but > state no > line of play. Will the outcome of the director decision be any > different > from if I concede all 13 tricks? > > What about this hand: > > Ax > AKQ > Kxx > AQJx > > xxx > xx > Qxx > Kxxxx > > The opening lead against 3NT is a heart. Declarer claims for 9 tricks. > > versus.... > > same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. > > To try to answer my own questions, I think the laws treat the first > two > situations the same -- the declarer gets any tricks that cannot be > lost by > normal play. Am I missing something? > > As director, I will, contradictorily, give the first declarer 9 > tricks and > the second declarer 10. I will use number of tricks claimed to crawl > inside declarer's head. The problem is, crawling inside declarer's > head > seems to be an important part of the claiming process, but I can't > find a > good justification for it in the laws. Am I missing something? Not at all. To answer Bob's implied question, cashing nine tricks before playing diamonds is obviously careless and inferior, but is something a beginner might well decide to do. I'd be prepared to argue that it's "not irrational", but until we resolve the issue in the "a question" thread, it's not clear whether that matters. But that's overanalyzing. These are not contested claims. "Normal" only matters in resolving omitted or ambiguous details of the claim statement; it cannot "trump" the imposition of a play the claimer stated he would take unless something happens that would be presumed to invalidate that line (such as an opponent unexpectedly showing out of a suit, or pitching a winner). When a player looking at nine obvious winners off the top claims for nine tricks, it is perfectly reasonable to interpret that as a statement that he intends to cash his nine top tricks, so he gets them. Of course, if it turns out that whatever the opppnents discard and whatever he leads to trick 10 he will inevitably come to one or more additional trick -- highly unlikely, but one could construct a hand where it could occur. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 4 15:51:58 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:51:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <49899511.2050008@skynet.be> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> <49899511.2050008@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c986d8$21a30700$64e91500$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven Pran wrote: > > > > But except for these circumstances I shall rule Law 46B2: "If declarer > > designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest card > > of the suit indicated." - He has played the 4. > > > > And his remark "one off" or "just made" does not matter to me here. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > Sven's ruling looks correct to me, but he has forgotten one thing. > > "Heart, one off" is not a designation that will be rule according to > L46B2. It is a claim accompanied by a very short claim statement. > > Minor quibble, but still important. Why is that important? "Heart, one off" translates into a call for a heart which must be ruled upon as I did, and which is the complete statement with a claim for all remaining tricks except one. Or if you want: Declarer claimed all except one of the remaining tricks while specifying as his complete claim statement that the first card to be played from dummy (which is on the lead) is a heart. Law 46B2 applies exactly the same in either case. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 4 15:55:44 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:55:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4989A553.7080306@talktalk.net> References: <4989A553.7080306@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000a01c986d8$a7ccbb00$f7663100$@no> > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > Sent: 4. februar 2009 15:25 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Richard Hills asks: declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits and A765 > of trumps in hand opposite KQT98 in dummy. Declarer wins the side suit > opening lead, then claims, "Drawing trumps". How would you rule when the > remaining four trumps are held by (1)RHO? (2)LHO? declarer is (a) Mrs > Guggenheim? (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > [Nigel] > In case 2b, Mrs Guggenheim may deserve the benefit of the doubt because > she likes to practice finesses. In all other cases, you should rule > against declarer, who appears to have miscounted and seems to imagine > that the AKQ will take care of the outstanding trumps. To appreciate > this, please imagine that dummy's trumps are KQJT8. Only Mrs Guggenheim > would bother to finesse the eight. I liked this one! 8-) (ruling FOR Mrs Guggenheim and AGAINST the expert) Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 16:05:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:05:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4989AEB0.4030509@skynet.be> Since this was an answer to an argument I did not understand in the first place, I would not attach too much meaning to it. Eric draws totally false conclusions though. Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 3, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Sorry Maciej, but I don't understand this last point. Of course >> someone >> who forgets about a low trump will see that trump being made by the >> opponents. But so will the declarer who has forgotten about a high >> trump >> - he shall lose one trick to it. >> Because they are both in the exact same situation, they both "know" >> that >> there are no more trumps out. And they are both wrong, and they should >> both suffer, by having one of their tricks unexpectedly being ruffed. > > Herman provides a reductio ad absurdum refutation of his own > argument. He is reduced to asserting that a player who will lose a > trick to the high trump, which must take a trick on any line of play, > is "in the exact same situation" as a player who will lose a trick to > a small trump which he could have drawn, and concludes fairness from > the fact that they "both suffer" equivalently. Enough said. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 4 16:25:55 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:25:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <000901c986d8$21a30700$64e91500$@no> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> <49899511.2050008@skynet.be> <000901c986d8$21a30700$64e91500$@no> Message-ID: <4989B383.1080102@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Sven Pran wrote: >> >>> But except for these circumstances I shall rule Law 46B2: "If declarer >>> designates a suit but not a rank he is deemed to have called the lowest >>> > card > >>> of the suit indicated." - He has played the 4. >>> >>> And his remark "one off" or "just made" does not matter to me here. >>> >>> Regards Sven >>> >>> >> Sven's ruling looks correct to me, but he has forgotten one thing. >> >> "Heart, one off" is not a designation that will be rule according to >> L46B2. It is a claim accompanied by a very short claim statement. >> >> Minor quibble, but still important. >> > > Why is that important? > > "Heart, one off" translates into a call for a heart which must be ruled upon > as I did, and which is the complete statement with a claim for all remaining > tricks except one. > AG : except that in his head, in (b), it's a claim for all tricks, and that's why I think this ruling will be different for the "mind-readers" group. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 16:36:05 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:36:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <000901c986d8$21a30700$64e91500$@no> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> <49899511.2050008@skynet.be> <000901c986d8$21a30700$64e91500$@no> Message-ID: <4989B5E5.60801@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: >> Minor quibble, but still important. > > Why is that important? > Because the ruling depends from it. > "Heart, one off" translates into a call for a heart which must be ruled upon > as I did, and which is the complete statement with a claim for all remaining > tricks except one. > > Or if you want: Declarer claimed all except one of the remaining tricks > while specifying as his complete claim statement that the first card to be > played from dummy (which is on the lead) is a heart. Law 46B2 applies > exactly the same in either case. > OK, if you put it like that. He did not call for the heart as a card he wants to play. He claimed. He stated he would play a heart first. So he "desgnated" a card. Is this designation covered by L46B2? Let's see: "of the card to be played from dummy" It does not say that this card shall be played to the following trick. Let's detach the two, by saying that in his claim statement, declarer says he will cross to the table and play "heart". Does L46B apply to this "designation". I'm not sure it does, but it's a minor quibble, as I said, since the intention counts both within the claim statement and in L46B. Let's drop it. Herman. > Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 4 16:38:27 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:38:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> Message-ID: <4989B673.7080709@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx > > xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx > > > same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. > > [DALB] > > I would rule in accordance with the Laws. Declarer repeats the statement he > made at the time of his claim which was presumably "10 tricks". I would hear > the defenders' objections. If they said "we can only see nine tricks", and > declarer said "obviously I will set up a diamond before I release the ace of > spades or the top hearts", I would rule nine tricks and tell him to include > what he is "obviously" going to do in his claim statement next time. I don't > know whether he was actually going to do this or whether he had simply > miscounted his top tricks in the first place. And I don't care. > And do you play that way too? Will you call the director on an opponent who does not say he'll develop the diamond? > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 4 17:19:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 17:19:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <4989B5E5.60801@skynet.be> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <000001c986b9$db59ffb0$920dff10$@no> <49899511.2050008@skynet.be> <000901c986d8$21a30700$64e91500$@no> <4989B5E5.60801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4989C029.1050105@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > "of the card to be played from dummy" > > It does not say that this card shall be played to the following trick. > > Let's detach the two, by saying that in his claim statement, declarer > says he will cross to the table and play "heart". Does L46B apply to > this "designation". I'm not sure it does, but it's a minor quibble, as I > said, since the intention counts both within the claim statement and in > L46B. > AG : not so minor IMNSHO. Consider a claim such as : "I'm leading a spade towards the table, and playing hearts to squeeze RHO between spades and diamonds, of which I know he has 4 each". In case it's of any importance, I'll consider inferred that he plays hearts from the top. I'm not allowed to do this according to L46, but L46 doesn't apply here. Best regards Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Feb 4 19:35:27 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:35:27 -0400 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry Robert, I should have stated my view more clearly. Yes, in Scenario 1 I ignore the class of player and assume that even an expert player can be careless and cash the Ace first. In Scenario 2 I ignore the class of player once again and assume that even the weakest player on earth can play any high honour and discover the position in time to recover and take the necessary finesse. Jack On 2/4/09 8:45 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 07:22:28 -0500, Jack Rhind wrote: > >> In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does not. >> I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. > > Is this because you ignore class of player when making a claim ruling? > > (You did not explain your answer. Why are you making this ruling?) > > >> >> Jack >> >> >> On 2/4/09 2:01 AM, "richard.hills at immi.gov.au" >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the >>> side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with >>> the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". >>> >>> >>> Scenario One trump suit >>> >>> Dummy >>> KQT98 >>> LHO RHO >>> --- J432 >>> Declarer >>> A765 >>> >>> How would you rule if declarer was: >>> >>> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >>> >>> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >>> >>> >>> Scenario Two trump suit >>> >>> Dummy >>> KQT98 >>> LHO RHO >>> J432 --- >>> Declarer >>> A765 >>> >>> How would you rule if declarer was: >>> >>> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >>> >>> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >>> >>> >>> 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 ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 4 21:08:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 15:08:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> References: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <25966682-1D3E-4CE8-8E8B-73FD069135F0@starpower.net> On Feb 3, 2009, at 9:57 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > I don't often agree with Herman de Wael but I do feel that some > BLMLers > are rudely dismissive of his views. > > For example, it is amusing how some directors, called about a faulty > claim, rule so inconsistently > - They strictly apply tithe law, refusing to let a beginner cash > the ace > of trumps before his other aces (although in practice, they know > that he > almost certainly would do so). > - But they out-Herman Herman, allowing an expert (who has obviously > completely lost the place and is a trick short of his claim), to > recover > by cashing the SA first so that he can profit from a squeeze in this > kind of position > .......... S:2 > .......... H:AJ > H:KQ > D:A > .......... S:A > .......... H:2 > .......... D:K Nigel doesn't tell us exactly what declarer did here. That he "lost the place and is a trick short of his claim" suggests that he has claimed two tricks thinking there were two to go, rather than claiming three tricks thinking he had a third winner. The latter case is uninteresting, anyway; he is presumed to cash his actual winners and attempt to cash his thought-to-be winner before any other cards but otherwise in the least advantageous order. So I assume Nigel meant to address the (far more interesting) question of whether a declarer in this position, having claimed two (of the last three) tricks, might be awarded the third on the squeeze per L70E1, which gives declarer the benefit of an "unstated line of play" if "failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational". Let's see... I certainly wouldn't allow declarer to profit from *that* squeeze, but I don't think that's what Nigel meant. It behooves us to get our examples straight. Since we have determined that declarer claimed for two tricks, we assume that he intends to cash his two aces and give up the last. He gets two tricks. Since we can only take from his statement that he will cash two aces, we may assume that he believes that the order in which they are cashed doesn't matter. This is analogous to the trump-and-high-side-card case in the "a question" thread. Since it is to his disadvantage to cash the HA first, then return to the SA, we "impose" that line of play. To get where Nigel wants to go, change North's S2 to the D2. Then South, if he is to take his two aces now, has no choice; he must play the SA at trick 11. We do not presume that he will fail to notice West's card. In that layout, he gets three tricks, notwithstanding that he "has obviously completely lost the place and is a trick short of his claim". I would guess this is the case giving Nigel heartburn. But wait; we're not done! Change North's S2 to the C2 (and give the unseen East hand some higher club(s)), and now North gets only two tricks. In the previous example we let him keep the HJ after seeing West's HQ (but not the HK, yet!), because it would be clearly "irrational" (still in L70!) to pitch the HJ in order to retain the D2 when holding the DK in hand (distribute three each of the 46 cards not now held by N-S at random to E-W, and there is no layout in which it can gain to keep the D2). But the C2 is a horse -- or rather a card -- of a different color; it is not clearly irrational to keep it, so we impose the discard of the HJ on the SA. To close the circle, keep the C2 but take away East's clubs. Then declarer has a top winner he doesn't know about, so we make him throw it away to keep the "losing" HJ, but then the HJ scores, and he gets three tricks anyhow. Woo! ---------- On rereading the above, I am struck by that last parenthetical (next- to-last paragraph). It suggests a reasonable starting point for a threshhold test of "irrational" that should satisfy all but the most extreme string-'em-uppers. New thread, anyone? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 4 21:59:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:59:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49895FA2.6000801@skynet.be> Message-ID: >and then there are at least 3 AC members of 2001. Snap. And then there are at least 3 AC members of 1997. http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html St Louis ACBL Appeals Casebook, Fall 1997, Case Forty-Three (Claim) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Feb 4 22:27:38 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:27:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> Robert Frick wrote: >
On Wed, > 04 Feb 2009 07:22:28 -0500, Jack Rhind wrote: > >> In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does >> not. >> I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. > > Is this because you ignore class of player when making a claim ruling? > > (You did not explain your answer. Why are you making this ruling?) > Back when I was a director, my explanation would be: "When you fail to claim correctly, it becomes mpossible for me presume you would play the remaining tricks correctly." Perhaps this explains why I no longer direct. ; : And to Herman: I still don't understand why you would award the best of all possible outcomes to someone who makes a defective claim. --Bob Park From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 4 23:05:30 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:05:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 70E1 - Unstated Line of Play: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". Scenario One trump suit Dummy KQT98 LHO RHO --- J432 Declarer A765 How would you rule if declarer was: (a) Mrs Guggenheim? Richard Hills: The unstated line of play is how trumps are to be drawn, and the particular card to be found is the jack of trumps, so Law 70E1 is clearly the applicable Law. Note, however, in the final clause "or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational" the word "irrational" stands alone; the phrase "irrational for the class of player involved" is not used. The only rational play with this combination is to take the 100% safety play of playing a monarch first. Therefore, it does not matter that Mrs Guggenheim has never read about safety plays, nor that one-third of the time at the table Mrs Guggenheim would irrationally play the ace first. Once Mrs Guggenheim claims without a statement she must be assumed to take the only rational line of a 100% safety play or (on a different deal) the only rational line of a backwash squeeze. Perhaps the Drafting Committee committed a drafting error by writing "would be irrational" instead of "would not be normal*"? 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 Feb 4 23:28:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:28:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: >Dummy has 874 of hearts and some high cards. There is still one >trump outside, the 6. Declarer needs all remaining tricks. >..... >c) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he thinks his hearts are equal >and the outstanding trump is the 9) >Do we assume he played the 4 ? >..... EBU White Book, Law 70E2 regulation: Top down? A declarer who states that he is cashing a suit is normally assumed to cash them from the top, especially if there is some solidity. However, each individual case should be considered. Example Suppose declarer claims three tricks with AK5 opposite 42, forgetting the jack has not gone. It would be normal to give him three tricks since it might be considered irrational to play the 5 first. However, with 754 opposite void it may be considered careless rather than irrational to lose a trick to a singleton six. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Feb 4 23:45:31 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:45:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> Again, last posting. Bullshit! Or as Bystry would say, "moonshine". "Free" is no better and irrelevant. It changes nothing and from the meaning of the word in English is inappropriate. As Bystry says, "end of the discussion"; I refuse to waste any more time on this. You can continue with your compulsions but not on my time. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> I said I wasn't going to continue the discussion but shall violate that >> promise. >> >> I doubt that your command of English is better than mine ("high") but >> that isn't terribly relative. It is unimportant if we say "high" or >> "good" or "a winner" or whatever. The meaning is clear to all. >> Questioning the usage of "high" is grasping a straw and a diversion, not >> relevant. >> > > See my post somewhere else: You are absolutely right in calling high > trumps the same as high side-suits. But you are wrong in deducing that > this means there is no difference. There are at least two differences: > 1) they are trumps and can be used to get back in > 2) there are no outstanding cards of the "free" trump suit. > > You are right in saying trumps are just as "high" as side suits. > But I am also right in saying trumps are better than "high", they are > "free" (and trumps!) > > And so if you criticise me for saying that there is a difference between > trumps and side suits, then you are wrong (in criticising me). > >> I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade >> and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase >> anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", >> "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are >> discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is >> a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a >> general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) >> > > No, these words are not the same. "high" means there are no higher cards > outstanding. "free" (indeed a better word than "last") means there are > no cards outstanding. To say that they have the same meaning is simply > wrong. > >> Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and >> waste of time. > > I was giving an actual example from real life - that cannot be a waste > of time. > >> Stop giving examples and deal with the problem at hand. >> I clearly stated that the other two hands were irrelevant, that included >> the dummy. To restate the original problem (as far as I recall, may >> have confused unimportant details): declarer has the trump 6 and a high >> spade (might have been a heart) and a defender has the trump 8 and a >> high heart (might have been a spade). You have my permission to call >> any of these cards "high", "good", "winner", "last", "master" or >> whatever you like. And, I repeat, the other hands are, in this problem, >> irrelevant. Declarer (claimer) claims the last two tricks (implication) >> by showing his cards and saying he believes there are no more trumps >> out. > > I understand the case completely. > >> The clear inference is that he believes both cards are good >> (winners, high, whatever you like). > > That is your inference. My inference is that he believes one card to be > "high" and one trump to be "free". > >> He makes no further statement, does >> not say in which order he proposes to play these last two cards. I >> shan't waste more time and space by mentioning that this is an improper, >> or incomplete, claim. Your position, as I understand it, is that he >> would automatically play the high (not trump) card first and that it >> would not be normal (or it would be irrational?) to play the trump >> first. > > Indeed. As one of your (adopted) countrymen put it: "in Praxis" in > practice no-one plays the trump first. > >> That seems to be your position and I, of course, must accept it, >> assume you are serious. In the correspondence I have had (blml and >> privately from other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have >> been about 30-35 others who say either card could normally, or possibly, >> be played. A few have even been baffled and asked in unbelief what >> could be the possible reason to not give the defenders 2 tricks. >> >> Okay, as they say in Germany at football matches, "Ende der Durchsage"; >> that is, this is definitely my last attempt to discuss this. But again, >> as the Germans say, "Nichts f?r ungut!" (Engl. equivalent doesn't occur >> to me and you speak German I think.) Ciao, JE >> > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 5 00:29:42 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:29:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> Has it occurred to anyone that the expression "Herman bashing" could be interpreted in two ways? Passively, (someone bashing Herman) or actively (Herman bashing someone). For instance when Herman writes that apparently Sven has not played much bridge. That would seem to me Herman bashing Sven. Some time ago, as an exercise in futility, I started noting example of Herman bashing in the sense above, Herman bashing others. I quickly managed to fill 3 pages with examples (in about 3-4 weeks) when he was unkind, perhaps even insulting or patronising. (As Richard occasionally says, "notes sent on request".) Only the others did not "come along and get insulted" (obscure quote from an old Dubliners song). Herman seems to regularly feel insulted and demand apology for statements which seem, at least to me, innocuous. ("Seems to me" = subjective personal interpretation, naturally something not known by people who feel that their opinion is absolute and not to be contradicted.) As the Americans say, if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen. JE richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > > Herman De Wael demanded an apology from Eric Landau: > >> And why is my interpretation wrong? Because it differs from yours? >> Or just because you call it peculiar. >> >> On that point, I assert, this is Herman-bashing. >> >> And I am offended. >> >> And I demand an apology. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > peculiar, a. belonging to the individual (e.g. his peculiar charm). > peculiarity, n. individual characteristic, oddity. > > Jeff Easterson: > >>> .....In the correspondence I have had (blml and privately from >>> other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have been about >>> 30-35 others..... > > Richard Hills: > > The peculiar charm of Herman De Wael is that his views on what the > current Claim Laws require happen to be an oddity amongst 30-odd > other blmlers and Directors. > > Arthur Hugh Clough (1819-1861) "The Latest Decalogue" (modified): > > Thou shalt have Herman only; who > Would be at the expense of two? > > No graven images may be > Worshipp'd, except His 2001 AC. > > Swear not at Herman, for at thy curse > He complains of "Herman-bashing" worse. > > De Wael on Sunday to attend, > Read week-days too, words without end. > > Honour thy Herman, that is all; > Since others "stubbornly" pratfall. > > Thou shalt not kill-file, but need'st not strive > Officiously to keep God alive. > > Do not apology commit > God does not reciprocate it. > > Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat > When it's so lucrative to cheat. > > Bear not false witness; let the ly- > Ing claim on its own wings to fly. > > Thou shalt not covet, but tradition > Approves "Laws guru" competition. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Laws guru, and > Primus inter pares of the Bridge Laws Mailing List > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 5 01:21:22 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 00:21:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <42FB88D3E32F4FE0BBE60A415937C7C9@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:01 AM Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the > side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with > the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > > Scenario One trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > --- J432 > Declarer > A765 I've beem using this as the definition of careless for years. One off; both of them. > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > > Scenario Two trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > J432 --- > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > WTP? John > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This > email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally > privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Thu Feb 5 01:29:45 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 00:29:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E303D@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <682CF935CCFE45AAA8DF35028AC3215A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 1:54 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >>> In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 he does >>> not. >>> I make this ruling regardless of who the declarer is. >> >> Is this because you ignore class of player when making a claim ruling? >> >> (You did not explain your answer. Why are you making this ruling?) > > I agree with "In scenario 1 declarer loses a trump trick and in Scenario 2 > he does not." > > I think for all classes of player, cashing the ace first is "careless", so > included in "normal". The second scenario is covered by law 70 E1. > > Robin > and I've watched an English international misplay AQ9xx facing J8xxx. He's going off in scenario 1 too. John > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or > privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. > If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or > disclose such information. > > NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any > attachments are free from viruses. > > NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 > Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, > Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 5 04:16:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:16:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: The Bridge World, January 1983, Page 18: Kaplan gave two relevant examples about incorrectly claiming all the tricks. First example - WEST S --- H Q 6 D K C 7 SOUTH S K Q H K D Q C --- South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the last four tricks (forgetting that the DK is still outstanding). Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual winners first. Neither does Kaplan "Burn" South by ruling that South instantly leads the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, giving South zero tricks. Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest of random (but not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules that South cashes the HK, then leads the DQ, giving South one trick. Second example - NORTH S --- H 6 4 D A Q T 2 C Q WEST EAST S --- S --- H 7 H Q T 8 3 D J 9 8 3 D 7 C K J C T 4 SOUTH S --- H A K J D K 6 5 4 C --- In a notrump contract, North (dummy) leads a heart, and South successfully finesses the jack. South now claims the rest, overlooking the possibility that diamonds do not break. In the first example, where South thought all cards were _already_ winners, Kaplan did not mention the "always top down" rule. Here playing top cards first is relevant, since South's claim is based on the fourth round of diamonds _becoming_ top after three honours are cashed. On this second example, Kaplan rules that South is not deemed to play the diamond honours in a sensible order, thus revealing the marked finesse. Neither is South deemed to cash the heart honours first, catching West in a minor suit squeeze. On the other hand, Kaplan does not award West three tricks with the DJ, CK and CJ. Kaplan rules that, after declarer sees East show out twice in diamonds and the DJ fail to appear, that it would be irrational for declarer not to then cash HA and HK before playing a fourth diamond. Kaplan therefore rules that West gets only one trick. * * * I suggest that Ton Kooijman's forthcoming Appendix to the Laws should also contain similar indicative examples about the resolution of disputed claims. * * * The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: NORTH S A K Q T 3 H T 9 8 7 D 6 5 4 C K WEST EAST S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 H J 5 4 H --- D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 SOUTH S 8 4 H A K Q 6 3 2 D A 8 2 C A 3 Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, saying, "Pulling trumps." How would you rule? Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ claims the balance with no statement. How would you rule? Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, otherwise 12." How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 5 06:03:06 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 05:03:06 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <4989B673.7080709@skynet.be> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <4989B673.7080709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c9874f$084956c0$18dc0440$@com> Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx Contract: 3NT. Lead: a heart. [paraphrase of previous discussion] I have said that I would rule nine tricks in the case of a declarer who claimed nine, and also nine tricks in the case of a declarer who claimed ten with no further statement. Now HdW asks: And do you play that way too? Will you call the director on an opponent who does not say he'll develop the diamond? [DALB] And here is the real problem. To tell you the truth, Herman, I personally - at the table - would feel a little guilty if my opponent in a pairs event were to claim only nine tricks. I would not point out that a tenth could be established, not even indirectly by blaming the cretin opposite for not leading a spade. But I would put my cards back in the board slowly, and if my opponent said "hang on a minute" I would write down minus 630 without a Director call. Now, there are those who feel that I am absolutely right to play that way, and those who feel that I am absolutely wrong. To the latter I say, with Chesterton, "gainst you and all your sages, no joy of mine shall strive", but in truth the debate is one in which there are no winners, only losers. As Rubens and Kaplan before him have repeatedly pointed out, it is a sorry state of affairs in which however you act within the rules, about half of your acquaintances within the game will think that you are an idiot - or worse, a bad sport. If *my* opponent were to claim ten tricks, I would concede them. If you ask me what I would concede if I as either East or West held the singleton ace of diamonds - well, I am only human; I would not actually call the Director and ask that my opponent be given some percentage at least of the score for eleven tricks. Maybe I should. But if as a Director I am asked to rule on a claim of ten tricks - why, I would rule as I have said. Now I am one of the sages, not one of the joyful strivers, and as Grattan Endicott (who has been and remains both a sage and a striver) memorably remarked: it is never unethical to play a game according to its rules. David Burn London, England From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 5 06:25:52 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:25:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] What directors do when they assess claims. In-Reply-To: <3C276FF2-03F7-42D9-AE77-C0C495A2000C@starpower.net> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <3C276FF2-03F7-42D9-AE77-C0C495A2000C@starpower.net> Message-ID: I am trying to keep this as short as possible. Following a claim (and or concession), the director determines the "plausible" (normal) lines of play and gives the claimer the least favorable of these. In doing this, the director uses the information in the claim statement, including the existence of the claim and the number of tricks being claimed. This may suggest intended lines of play, or it may suggest the claimer's awareness of the hand and hence plausible lines of play. Hopefully this is a paraphrase of the laws. It almost certainly is a description of what directors do and what players expect. EXAMPLE Examples seem to be limitless. For xxxxxx opposite AQJxxx as trump suit, declarer claims. Normal line of play in this 12-card fit is to cash the ace of spades, dropping the queen. If declarer (with no outside losers) claims to be making seven, he will probably be awarded the claim. If declarer leads to the AQ, sees RHO show out, and claims for making 6, directors will use this claim to infer that declarer is not aware that the king will drop. Given that, playing the queen becomes a plausible line of play to most directors. THE ALTERNATIVE? One could attempt to assess normal/plausible line of play ignoring the awareness suggested by the claim. I can find AC decisions which seem to do this. But these are the AC decisions which seem egregious bad to most players, such as allowing an expert to run a squeeze when the claim suggests that the expert does not see the need for a squeeze. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 5 06:56:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:56:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c9874f$084956c0$18dc0440$@com> Message-ID: George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950): "The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." Sven Pran asserted: >>I strongly resent (for more than one reason) any insinuation that >>you are supposed to show any of your cards to declarer in order to >>speed up his play. In fact, although not illegal I consider such >>attitude by a defender highly irregular. In a different context, David Burn quibbled: >Now I am one of the sages, not one of the joyful strivers, and as >Grattan Endicott (who has been and remains both a sage and a >striver) memorably remarked: it is never unethical to play a game >according to its rules. WBF Code of Practice on Ethics, page 6: "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 5 07:24:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 17:24:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] Claim law [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6067EC79-15A0-4312-BAE0-BF798B4EF797@starpower.net> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: >>[L68] >> >>C. Clarification Required for Claim >>A claim should be accompanied at once by a clear statement as to >>the *order in which cards will be played*, of the line of play >>or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks >>claimed. >> >>[/L68] >> >>By the way, in my opinion it would be better if "should" was >>changed for "must". Eric Landau: >The vast majority of claims play out something like this: > >Claimer: "I have the rest." Shows hand. > >Opponents: "So you do." Score it up; on to the next hand. > >This happens all the time, every day, every place bridge is >played. I see no merit in making it illegal. Richard Hills ultra-pedantically quibbles: Infracting a "should" Law is just as illegal as infracting a "must" Law. It is merely the _consequences_ of the infraction which differ. Introduction, sixth paragraph: Established usage has been retained in regard to "may" do (failure to do it is not wrong), "does" (establishes correct procedure without suggesting that violation be penalized) "should" do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor's rights but not often penalized), "shall" do (a violation will incur a procedural penalty more often than not), "must" do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed). Again, "must not" is the strongest prohibition, "shall not" is strong but "may not" is stronger - just short of "must not". Richard Hills ultra-pedantically quibbles: Plus I would argue "I have the rest" is fully consistent with the requirements of Law 68C. It obviously translates to, "I am playing my remaining cards in a sensible way (so with A3 opposite K2 I am not unblocking the king under the ace) to straightforwardly win all the tricks". George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950): "It took me twenty years of studied self-restraint, aided by the natural decay of my faculties, to make myself dull enough to be accepted as a serious person by the British public." 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 Thu Feb 5 08:58:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:58:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27: the Italian guidance. Message-ID: <001601c98767$8a66e470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: Message-ID: <498A9D0A.8000706@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> and then there are at least 3 AC members of 2001. > > Snap. > > And then there are at least 3 AC members of 1997. > > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html > > St Louis ACBL Appeals Casebook, Fall 1997, Case Forty-Three (Claim) > With a dissenter in my camp - Thank you, Barry, I always knew you had sense. Although, to be fair, his dissent is about knowing about the outstanding trump, not about playing the free trump first. Anyway - if Europeans are not going to give credit as precedence to an EBL appeal of 2001 - little chance of giving it to an ACBL one of 1997. > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 5 09:11:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:11:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003001c98769$9d190bf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:16 AM Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > * * * > > I suggest that Ton Kooijman's forthcoming Appendix to the > Laws should also contain similar indicative examples about > the resolution of disputed claims. > +=+ Ton's Commentary - a work still in progress - has come forth and may be accessed among the laws documents on the WBF web site. It's current status is that of personal opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 5 09:14:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:14:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> References: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> Message-ID: <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Has it occurred to anyone that the expression "Herman bashing" could be > interpreted in two ways? Passively, (someone bashing Herman) or actively > (Herman bashing someone). For instance when Herman writes that > apparently Sven has not played much bridge. That would seem to me Herman > bashing Sven. Some time ago, as an exercise in futility, I started > noting example of Herman bashing in the sense above, Herman bashing > others. I quickly managed to fill 3 pages with examples (in about 3-4 > weeks) when he was unkind, perhaps even insulting or patronising. (As > Richard occasionally says, "notes sent on request".) Only the others > did not "come along and get insulted" (obscure quote from an old > Dubliners song). Herman seems to regularly feel insulted and demand > apology for statements which seem, at least to me, innocuous. ("Seems > to me" = subjective personal interpretation, naturally something not > known by people who feel that their opinion is absolute and not to be > contradicted.) As the Americans say, if you can't stand the heat stay > out of the kitchen. JE > OK, I'll apologise in one go for anyone I have insulted. It's sometimes hard to not get carried away. I feel (and this too is a personal opinion) that there is a subtle difference though. If I call somebody's argument stupid, it is directed at the argument, and (I apologise) at the person by extension. But it is about an argument. When I refer to Herman-bashing, it is not people calling Herman Stupid (I don't really mind that), it is people calling some of my arguments stupid _because they come from Herman_. And that is not acceptable. Take that last time I complained, about Eric. Not only did Eric believe he was right from the mere fact that he was in a group of 5 against me alone, but he had the gall to imply that I ruled against what I believed the laws were. As if my opinion on what the laws are are of no worth whatsoever. That is Herman-beshing. Or take Maciej's comparing me to a dove. Rather than admit that there is a mere difference of opinion, he makes it out as if I am being too soft on claimers. Remark that he only used the word dove - he did not compare his own view to that of a hawk. And yes, he did apologise to the birds later. In both cases, and many others, people are putting me outside of the "main" bridge conscience. They interpret my views, which are quite often minority views, as outside. And they try and gain an advantage from their being in a majority. And that is Herman-bashing, and I don't consider that to be a fair argumentative tool. Herman. From gampas at aol.com Wed Feb 4 17:04:35 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:04:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be><4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> Message-ID: <8CB54F96860FC35-858-2200@webmail-da20.sysops.aol.com> [DALB] (discussing the claim for ten tricks where declarer needed to knock out the AD) I would rule nine tricks and tell him to include what he is "obviously" going to do in his claim statement next time. I don't know whether he was actually going to do this or whether he had simply miscounted his top tricks in the first place. And I don't care. [paul lamford] I don't care either whether he was actually going to do what he stated or whether he had miscounted his top tricks. I am not going to be able to guess his state of mind, nor does the law require me to do so. I only have to decide whether it is normal to do anything else than knock out the ace of diamonds before playing the ace of spades and, if the hearts are not 4-3, all three hearts. For all but the weakest novice, I would award 10 tricks. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090204/a5adea7f/attachment.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 5 09:20:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:20:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> Message-ID: <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> Jeff, I thought you had more sense than this. Whatever the word, and as a native English speaker I allow you to choose the best one yet, there is a qualitative difference between the trumps and the side suits in the situation we are discussing here. Side suits are Rectangular: There are, in combined opponents' hands, the same number or less of them than there higher ones in claimer's hand combined with that of claimer's partner. The Trump suit is Square: There are, in opponent's hands, no more at all. I know full well that Squares are also Rectangles. But to say that with one Square and 3 Oblongs (I had to look that word up), there is no difference between the four suits because they are all Rectangles, is, quite basically, wrong. And if you want to close a discussion because you can no longer win it, then please say so, and don't drop out with words like moonshine. Herman. Jeff Easterson wrote: > Again, last posting. > > Bullshit! Or as Bystry would say, "moonshine". "Free" is no better and > irrelevant. It changes nothing and from the meaning of the word in > English is inappropriate. As Bystry says, "end of the discussion"; I > refuse to waste any more time on this. You can continue with your > compulsions but not on my time. JE > > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>> I said I wasn't going to continue the discussion but shall violate that >>> promise. >>> >>> I doubt that your command of English is better than mine ("high") but >>> that isn't terribly relative. It is unimportant if we say "high" or >>> "good" or "a winner" or whatever. The meaning is clear to all. >>> Questioning the usage of "high" is grasping a straw and a diversion, not >>> relevant. >>> >> See my post somewhere else: You are absolutely right in calling high >> trumps the same as high side-suits. But you are wrong in deducing that >> this means there is no difference. There are at least two differences: >> 1) they are trumps and can be used to get back in >> 2) there are no outstanding cards of the "free" trump suit. >> >> You are right in saying trumps are just as "high" as side suits. >> But I am also right in saying trumps are better than "high", they are >> "free" (and trumps!) >> >> And so if you criticise me for saying that there is a difference between >> trumps and side suits, then you are wrong (in criticising me). >> >>> I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade >>> and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase >>> anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", >>> "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are >>> discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is >>> a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a >>> general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) >>> >> No, these words are not the same. "high" means there are no higher cards >> outstanding. "free" (indeed a better word than "last") means there are >> no cards outstanding. To say that they have the same meaning is simply >> wrong. >> >>> Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and >>> waste of time. >> I was giving an actual example from real life - that cannot be a waste >> of time. >> >>> Stop giving examples and deal with the problem at hand. >>> I clearly stated that the other two hands were irrelevant, that included >>> the dummy. To restate the original problem (as far as I recall, may >>> have confused unimportant details): declarer has the trump 6 and a high >>> spade (might have been a heart) and a defender has the trump 8 and a >>> high heart (might have been a spade). You have my permission to call >>> any of these cards "high", "good", "winner", "last", "master" or >>> whatever you like. And, I repeat, the other hands are, in this problem, >>> irrelevant. Declarer (claimer) claims the last two tricks (implication) >>> by showing his cards and saying he believes there are no more trumps >>> out. >> I understand the case completely. >> >>> The clear inference is that he believes both cards are good >>> (winners, high, whatever you like). >> That is your inference. My inference is that he believes one card to be >> "high" and one trump to be "free". >> >>> He makes no further statement, does >>> not say in which order he proposes to play these last two cards. I >>> shan't waste more time and space by mentioning that this is an improper, >>> or incomplete, claim. Your position, as I understand it, is that he >>> would automatically play the high (not trump) card first and that it >>> would not be normal (or it would be irrational?) to play the trump >>> first. >> Indeed. As one of your (adopted) countrymen put it: "in Praxis" in >> practice no-one plays the trump first. >> >>> That seems to be your position and I, of course, must accept it, >>> assume you are serious. In the correspondence I have had (blml and >>> privately from other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have >>> been about 30-35 others who say either card could normally, or possibly, >>> be played. A few have even been baffled and asked in unbelief what >>> could be the possible reason to not give the defenders 2 tricks. >>> >>> Okay, as they say in Germany at football matches, "Ende der Durchsage"; >>> that is, this is definitely my last attempt to discuss this. But again, >>> as the Germans say, "Nichts f?r ungut!" (Engl. equivalent doesn't occur >>> to me and you speak German I think.) Ciao, JE >>> >> Herman. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 5 09:32:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:32:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <000101c9874f$084956c0$18dc0440$@com> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <4989B673.7080709@skynet.be> <000101c9874f$084956c0$18dc0440$@com> Message-ID: <498AA431.5050503@skynet.be> I am quite happy and actually a little surprised with David's response here. Allow me to condense it to help those who have not read it. David told us that as a director, he would rule 9 tricks on a claimer who claimed for 10, with one of those 10 tricks coming from Kxx opposite Qxx, but without saying that he wanted a trick from that suit. I asked David how he treated such a claim as a player. He did not answer how he would act as a claimer - since obviously he would make the statement. And possibly just decline the trick if he had done it wrongly. But David did say what he would do at the table if his opponent did this - and it is that he agrees to the claim and ten tricks. So now here is my next question. If the claim laws were such, that each and every director would award this tenth trick, would David then complain that the claim laws were wrong? I'm sure he wouldn't. Now I believe the claim laws are such, and I am trying to get every director to award this tenth trick. Is that so bad? And does this not mean that David is wrong in ruling as he does? He says: I don't know whether he was actually going to do this or whether he had simply miscounted his top tricks in the first place. And I don't care. The first sentence is correct - you don't know. But the second isn't: you should care. You should investigate. And if you did find out, to your satisfaction, that claimer did indeed intend a diamond trick when he said 10, then you should rule that he gets those 10. Herman. David Burn wrote: > Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx > > xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx > > Contract: 3NT. Lead: a heart. > > [paraphrase of previous discussion] > > I have said that I would rule nine tricks in the case of a declarer who > claimed nine, and also nine tricks in the case of a declarer who claimed ten > with no further statement. Now HdW asks: > > And do you play that way too? Will you call the director on an opponent who > does not say he'll develop the diamond? > > [DALB] > > And here is the real problem. > > To tell you the truth, Herman, I personally - at the table - would feel a > little guilty if my opponent in a pairs event were to claim only nine > tricks. I would not point out that a tenth could be established, not even > indirectly by blaming the cretin opposite for not leading a spade. But I > would put my cards back in the board slowly, and if my opponent said "hang > on a minute" I would write down minus 630 without a Director call. > > Now, there are those who feel that I am absolutely right to play that way, > and those who feel that I am absolutely wrong. To the latter I say, with > Chesterton, "gainst you and all your sages, no joy of mine shall strive", > but in truth the debate is one in which there are no winners, only losers. > As Rubens and Kaplan before him have repeatedly pointed out, it is a sorry > state of affairs in which however you act within the rules, about half of > your acquaintances within the game will think that you are an idiot - or > worse, a bad sport. > > If *my* opponent were to claim ten tricks, I would concede them. If you ask > me what I would concede if I as either East or West held the singleton ace > of diamonds - well, I am only human; I would not actually call the Director > and ask that my opponent be given some percentage at least of the score for > eleven tricks. Maybe I should. > > But if as a Director I am asked to rule on a claim of ten tricks - why, I > would rule as I have said. Now I am one of the sages, not one of the joyful > strivers, and as Grattan Endicott (who has been and remains both a sage and > a striver) memorably remarked: it is never unethical to play a game > according to its rules. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 5 09:44:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 09:44:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> Robert Park wrote: > ; > : > And to Herman: I still don't understand why you would award the best of > all possible outcomes to someone who makes a defective claim. > > --Bob Park > Put it like this, I don't understand either. But then there are a number of things wrong in your sentence. 1) "the best of all possible outcomes"? No, never! This is what is wrong with blml. We find an interesting case, and we discuss it endlessly. And so we think this is the only case. We ignore all those others where we just apply the laws. Of course I don't give the best of all possible outcomes. In the Tenerife example, the best possible outcome if 4 tricks to declarer (with defender unblocking his highest trump). And the Tenerife example would not have been there if there were some other way for defender to get a second trick. So of course I don't give the best of all possible outcomes. But it's true, I don't award the worst of all outcomes. Not because I don't want to. But because I consider it to be not a possible outcome. So if Robert wants to rephrase his question: why don't you consider this outcome not possible - then I will answer it - and I think I have. 2) a defective claim. These are not defective claims - well, not any more so than any other. What I mean is this: any claim that we are called upon is a defective claim. So if Robert wishes to know how I deal with the 300 or so claim rulings I deal with every year, he can ask. But the question as put here is senseless. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 5 09:43:52 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:43:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 27: the Italian guidance. In-Reply-To: <001601c98767$8a66e470$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001601c98767$8a66e470$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000f01c9876d$df5ed950$9e1c8bf0$@no> Indeed. And the more I see of discussions on the 2007 laws the more I wish for an equivalent of the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. I know it must have been an effort of real magnitude at the time; is there any chance we may see something similar? Regards Sven On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+Subscribers may be interested in this translation of the > guidance given by the Italian NBO to its TDs. > ............................................................................ ............. > Law 27B1(b) is to be applied as if it were written as > follows: > "If, except as provided in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected > with a legal call that, in the director's opinion, shows the same > distribution or a distribution more precise than the one shown > by the insufficient bid (the distribution meaning being wholly > within the range of the insufficient bid), or alternatively if the > director considers that the offending side will be likely to gain > nothing substantial from the information conveyed that will > obstruct* the normal development of the auction, the auction > proceeds unaffected (but see paragraph D following)." > ............................................................................ ........... > (* consider the following alternative in place of the last two > lines above: ".....that will disturb the normal development of > the auction, the director should allow the auction to proceed > unaffected (but see paragraph D following)" - G.E.) > It will be noted that significantly the director does not take > any account of a difference in point count or hand value. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 5 09:43:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:43:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <007501c98771$131c0f30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a question +=+ I wish to quibble politely. "Whatever the word, and as a native English speaker I allow you to choose the best one yet, there is a qualitative difference between the trumps and the side suits in the situation we are discussing here." "Whatever the word, and I allow you as a native English speaker to choose the best one yet, there is a qualitative difference between the trumps and the side suits in the situation we are discussing here." 'as a native English speaker' refers to 'you' not to 'I'. Evidently. +=+ From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 5 11:02:41 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:02:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B In-Reply-To: <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> References: <6BC8BD5214174606B8A56FF4E0C81F3A@home4paplwv76s> <1LS5Yt-1NKNvc0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><000b01c9814f$046b2520$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c98158$b58b9a20$20a2ce60$@no> <001a01c98175$3e3e0b20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> Tuus all North starts bidding 1NT - East Doubles (alert). What is D, club suit or reds. South now Doubles, and very fast replace it to RD. N-S agreement for 1nt-2c-D is stayman, no firm agreement to 1nt-D ( clubs or reds)- RD. Is 36B force immediately, or can South change his inadmissible Double by Law 25 If 25 applies, how TD can assure that there was not change of mind ( even when change was very fast), was south's first call lapse, thinking bidding 1nt-2c. Juuso Leikola Finland From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 5 11:35:47 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:35:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> Bystry wrote: Wrong? Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give PPs. But once that player overdid, he failed to draw back the card in a right moment, the opponents called a TD and he ruled that the card "was in position...", so it was played. It resulted in a cold zero and falling from the second place to 7th or 8th (I don't remeber exactly). Since then that player carefully chooses the card which he wants to play. Introduction of 2007 laws: "They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where nonoffenders may otherwise be damaged" If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false claimers and misbehaviourisms. I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good company: Robert Wolff etc. Juuso Leikola Finland From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 5 11:41:02 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:41:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law 27: the Italian guidance. In-Reply-To: <000f01c9876d$df5ed950$9e1c8bf0$@no> References: <001601c98767$8a66e470$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000f01c9876d$df5ed950$9e1c8bf0$@no> Message-ID: <498AC23E.4080008@jldata.fi> Agree truly 1987 Commentary has been very useful for me. Sven Pran wrote: > Indeed. > And the more I see of discussions on the 2007 laws the more I wish for an > equivalent of the "Commentary on the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge 1987" > by Grattan Endicott and Bent Keith Hansen. > > I know it must have been an effort of real magnitude at the time; is there > any chance we may see something similar? > > Regards Sven > > On Behalf Of Grattan > >> +=+Subscribers may be interested in this translation of the >> guidance given by the Italian NBO to its TDs. >> >> > ............................................................................ > ............. > >> Law 27B1(b) is to be applied as if it were written as >> follows: >> "If, except as provided in (a), the insufficient bid is corrected >> with a legal call that, in the director's opinion, shows the same >> distribution or a distribution more precise than the one shown >> by the insufficient bid (the distribution meaning being wholly >> within the range of the insufficient bid), or alternatively if the >> director considers that the offending side will be likely to gain >> nothing substantial from the information conveyed that will >> obstruct* the normal development of the auction, the auction >> proceeds unaffected (but see paragraph D following)." >> >> > ............................................................................ > ........... > >> (* consider the following alternative in place of the last two >> lines above: ".....that will disturb the normal development of >> the auction, the director should allow the auction to proceed >> unaffected (but see paragraph D following)" - G.E.) >> It will be noted that significantly the director does not take >> any account of a difference in point count or hand value. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > Juuso Leikola Finland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090205/58b37a79/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 5 12:25:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:25:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B In-Reply-To: <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> References: <6BC8BD5214174606B8A56FF4E0C81F3A@home4paplwv76s> <1LS5Yt-1NKNvc0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><000b01c9814f$046b2520$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c98158$b58b9a20$20a2ce60$@no> <001a01c98175$3e3e0b20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <001601c98784$8236ebc0$86a4c340$@no> On Behalf Of Lapinjatka > Tuus all > North starts bidding 1NT - East Doubles (alert). What is D, club suit or > reds. > South now Doubles, and very fast replace it to RD. > N-S agreement for 1nt-2c-D is stayman, no firm agreement to 1nt-D ( > clubs or reds)- RD. > > Is 36B force immediately, or can South change his inadmissible Double by > Law 25 > If 25 applies, how TD can assure that there was not change of mind ( > even when change was very fast), was south's first call lapse, thinking > bidding 1nt-2c. If the Director is satisfied (from his investigation) that the double by South was inadvertent (for a redouble) then he shall apply Law 25A and allow the change of the call to the redouble. This is something the Director must judge. If the Director rules that Law 25A does not apply then Law 36B applies, end of story. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 5 12:48:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:48:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point that many of you need to realise. Lapinjatka wrote: > Bystry wrote: > Wrong? I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Your response is to a message in which the word wrong does not seem to appear. > Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that > there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much > more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive > ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players > who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I > observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some > places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? > Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people > will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. > Juuso, I assume you are talking about claims, so I'll answer on that one: Yes, I notice that some people are less forthcoming than others on giving claim statements. And yes, I agree that to rule against them will teach them to be more forthcoming. However, we are not talking about claims in general, but about one ruling in particular. In that one ruling, the player made a mistake, but not the mistake you are talking about. You are talking about the mistake of giving incomplete claim statements. That is not the mistake this player made! He claimed with a perfectly correct statement: "all are mine". If that were true, there would be no problem. The claim statement is OK. No need to teach this player a lesson (by taking away three tricks) in order that he makes better claim statements in future. This player made the mistake of forgetting a trump. That mistake will most often cost him a trick, and that is it's own reason why he should not do it - nothing the TD needs to do. After all, this mistake is not against the laws - only the partner will object. Now sometimes a player gets "lucky" and the mistake he makes does not cost him anything. Like in this case where the outstanding trump was high anyway. But there is no reason why the TD should take away 3 tricks off this player "to teach him a lesson". OK? Herman. > I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand > constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an > irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would > advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give > PPs. But once that player overdid, he failed to draw back the card in a > right moment, the opponents called a TD and he ruled that the card "was in > position...", so it was played. It resulted in a cold zero and falling from > the second place to 7th or 8th (I don't remeber exactly). Since then that > player carefully chooses the card which he wants to play. > > Introduction of 2007 laws: "They are primarily designed not as > punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of > situations where nonoffenders > may otherwise be damaged" > If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false > claimers and misbehaviourisms. > I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good > company: Robert Wolff etc. > > Juuso Leikola > Finland > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 5 13:13:07 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:13:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B In-Reply-To: <001601c98784$8236ebc0$86a4c340$@no> References: <6BC8BD5214174606B8A56FF4E0C81F3A@home4paplwv76s> <1LS5Yt-1NKNvc0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><000b01c9814f$046b2520$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c98158$b58b9a20$20a2ce60$@no> <001a01c98175$3e3e0b20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> <001601c98784$8236ebc0$86a4c340$@no> Message-ID: <498AD7D3.8010106@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> If 25 applies, how TD can assure that there was not change of mind ( >> even when change was very fast), was south's first call lapse, thinking >> bidding 1nt-2c. >> > > If the Director is satisfied (from his investigation) that the double by > South was inadvertent (for a redouble) then he shall apply Law 25A and allow > the change of the call to the redouble. This is something the Director must > judge. > > If the Director rules that Law 25A does not apply then Law 36B applies, end > of story. > That's unfair ! We all know the TD will apply L25, then if needed L36, according to what really happened. The question was : how does the TD ascertain what happened ? And I'll add : What does he need to take into account ? What should his investigation be ? And if the re-doubler is so quick of mind, should we believe he tells the truth when he says he pulled the wrong card ? Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 5 13:16:32 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:16:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <000d01c9878b$954e2460$15844c59@chello.pl> > Bystry wrote: > Wrong? Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that > there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much > more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive > ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players > who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I > observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some > places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? > Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people > will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. > > I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand > constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an > irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would > advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give > PPs. But once that player overdid, he failed to draw back the card in a > right moment, the opponents called a TD and he ruled that the card "was in > position...", so it was played. It resulted in a cold zero and falling from > the second place to 7th or 8th (I don't remeber exactly). Since then that > player carefully chooses the card which he wants to play. [Jusso] > Introduction of 2007 laws: "They are primarily designed not as > punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of > situations where nonoffenders > may otherwise be damaged" > If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false > claimers and misbehaviourisms. > I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good > company: Robert Wolff etc. And I think that you have no idea what you're writing about. Read my text again and show me in which point did I advocate illegal or "brutal" use of laws. I may understand that in your opinion my beliefs are too harsh, it is your holy right to have such an opinion. But if you accuse me of promoting illegality, that is totally unfounded and offensive. I don't need an apology, next time simply consider the merit *before* you write something. Now to your accusation of "brutality". I'm a bridge player. I spend significant amount of money to participate in bridge tournaments. For this money I (theoretically) have a right to play a given number of boards under the bridge laws. When my opponents infract the laws and as a result I'm unable to play (at least normally) a board, I just lost a part of my due pleasure. Adjusting the result to an average expectation is no real indemnity, I have absolutely no satisfaction if TDs are "playing" or deciding my scores instead of me, and I wouldn't have even if they were giving me tops every time (although then at least my score wouldn't suffer). So is it really so strange that I wish to see fewer infractions made? Am I a tyrant or a sadist just because I want to see a game played according to its rules, like thousands of other games? The lawmakers think that it is enough to "repair" the damage. No, the best way is to *avoid* it. It is a principle engraved into humanity. We repair, yes, but first of all we are trying to prevent. What was so appalling in my story? I described a player who irritated nearly all of his opponents with his inappropriate behavior. How would you feel if I was for example constantly jawing when playing against you, thus putting you off stride? Would you request me to stop? Sure, but I wouldn't comply. Would you call a TD then? Sure, but I wouldn't comply to his request. Would you support giving me a PP then? I'm sure that the answer is "yes". So you call me "brutal" because I wanted a PP for that player? You call me "brutal" because I support *fully lawful* TD's ruling of "a played card" which costed that guy some tournament places? You call me "brutal" because I'm happy that he abandoned his bad habit? It is really high time to stop to treat bridge players as small children in a sandpit who will take their toys and go home, just because they get penalised for something. Ask yourself - do we want a game decided by bridge players' skills at the table, or by TDs'/ACs' skills outside it. Isn't it enough that some events were decided in the Committee rooms (Reisinger, quarter-final of BB, final of BB and many other of lesser significance), do we have to touch football or boxing? > Juuso Leikola > Finland Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 5 13:26:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 13:26:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498ADAF7.4060205@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point that many > of you need to realise. > > Lapinjatka wrote: > >> Bystry wrote: >> Wrong? >> > > I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Your response is to > a message in which the word wrong does not seem to appear. > > >> Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that >> there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much >> more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive >> ones. I hope Lapinjatka didn't mean that inattentive people are the same that make faulty claims, fail to alert, transmit UI or infract in other ways that are directly against the game's spirit (as opposed to, say, IBs, which are against the game's mechanics). I might even feel offended. >> I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players >> who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I >> observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some >> places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? >> Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people >> will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. >> >> Please notice that, in order to change this, TFLB provides us with PPs. Not with artificial scores. Feel free to be harsh in assessing PPs to experienced players who don't follow correct procedure. Do not give their opponents an advantage for this reason only. > This player made the mistake of forgetting a trump. That mistake will > most often cost him a trick, and that is it's own reason why he should > not do it - nothing the TD needs to do. After all, this mistake is not > against the laws - only the partner will object. Now sometimes a player > gets "lucky" and the mistake he makes does not cost him anything. Like > in this case where the outstanding trump was high anyway. > > But there is no reason why the TD should take away 3 tricks off this > player "to teach him a lesson". > > AG : I think Herman has it right. > >> I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand >> constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an >> irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would >> advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give >> PPs. AG : Perhaps that's what's wrong. In my view, calling the detached card a played card was against the laws, no matter how strong the TD wanted to make that habit stop. But telling the player that he'd get a PP whenever he acts in this way, then actually inflicting PPs, would be perfectly legal, as efficient, and fair to the field. Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 5 13:42:44 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002f01c9878f$3dea2d00$15844c59@chello.pl> > Lapinjatka wrote: > > Bystry wrote: > > Wrong? > > I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Your response is to > a message in which the word wrong does not seem to appear. He was refering to my message which you might have overlooked, here's a link: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045506.html > > Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that > > there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much > > more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive > > ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players > > who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I > > observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some > > places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? > > Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people > > will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. > > > > Juuso, I assume you are talking about claims, so I'll answer on that one: Me, not Juuso. > Yes, I notice that some people are less forthcoming than others on > giving claim statements. > And yes, I agree that to rule against them will teach them to be more > forthcoming. > However, we are not talking about claims in general, but about one > ruling in particular. I was writing about claims in general, it was an answer to your statement: [Herman] > Wrong. People do not misclaim eternally. > People do make faulty claims more or less frequent. [/Herman] > In that one ruling, the player made a mistake, but not the mistake you > are talking about. You are talking about the mistake of giving > incomplete claim statements. That is not the mistake this player made! > He claimed with a perfectly correct statement: "all are mine". If that > were true, there would be no problem. The claim statement is OK. No need > to teach this player a lesson (by taking away three tricks) in order > that he makes better claim statements in future. > This player made the mistake of forgetting a trump. That mistake will > most often cost him a trick, and that is it's own reason why he should > not do it - nothing the TD needs to do. After all, this mistake is not > against the laws - only the partner will object. Now sometimes a player > gets "lucky" and the mistake he makes does not cost him anything. Like > in this case where the outstanding trump was high anyway. > > But there is no reason why the TD should take away 3 tricks off this > player "to teach him a lesson". You misinterpreted my view. I do not want to rule against anyone to "teach him a lesson". The reason for ruling against the misclaimer is to ensure that his opponents do not lose even the smallest chance of obtaining a better result and that the misclaimer do not gain anything by his misclaim. Harshness of ruling does not depend on the person ruled against, we have PPs for coping with habitual/blatant offenders. "Teaching a lesson" is a beneficial side-effect and it is only important when dealing with claims with deficient statements, not with misclaims caused by a slip of mind. So as you can see we generally agree and your statement is in my opinion fully correct. We disagree only in a question of rationality of playing trump first. In my opinion (and in opinion of nearly all contributors, and I think in opinion of most bridge players) it is fully rational, so there was a real chance that the misclaimer would do it, so he should lose two tricks. I have nothing against him, I don't know whether he is a solid claimer or not. I only criticized his behavior (lying, appealing) after the board. > Herman. Regards Maciej From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 5 13:45:19 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:45:19 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498ADF5F.9080608@jldata.fi> I am not talking about that claim. Someone claims in two card ending, that all tricks are his, and this actually was not correct. Wording in 70A is very clear. "any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer". From those two cards he must play first the worst one. Losing both tricks. End of case.. But I don't like to see the Law as hammer against players. Harsh verdict to educate them, not rectification of damage only. Juuso Herman De Wael wrote: > Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point that many > of you need to realise. > > Lapinjatka wrote: > >> Bystry wrote: >> Wrong? >> > > I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Your response is to > a message in which the word wrong does not seem to appear. > > >> Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that >> there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much >> more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive >> ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players >> who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I >> observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some >> places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? >> Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people >> will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. >> >> > > Juuso, I assume you are talking about claims, so I'll answer on that one: > > Yes, I notice that some people are less forthcoming than others on > giving claim statements. > And yes, I agree that to rule against them will teach them to be more > forthcoming. > However, we are not talking about claims in general, but about one > ruling in particular. > > In that one ruling, the player made a mistake, but not the mistake you > are talking about. You are talking about the mistake of giving > incomplete claim statements. That is not the mistake this player made! > He claimed with a perfectly correct statement: "all are mine". If that > were true, there would be no problem. The claim statement is OK. No need > to teach this player a lesson (by taking away three tricks) in order > that he makes better claim statements in future. > This player made the mistake of forgetting a trump. That mistake will > most often cost him a trick, and that is it's own reason why he should > not do it - nothing the TD needs to do. After all, this mistake is not > against the laws - only the partner will object. Now sometimes a player > gets "lucky" and the mistake he makes does not cost him anything. Like > in this case where the outstanding trump was high anyway. > > But there is no reason why the TD should take away 3 tricks off this > player "to teach him a lesson". > > OK? > > Herman. > > >> I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand >> constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an >> irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would >> advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give >> PPs. But once that player overdid, he failed to draw back the card in a >> right moment, the opponents called a TD and he ruled that the card "was in >> position...", so it was played. It resulted in a cold zero and falling from >> the second place to 7th or 8th (I don't remeber exactly). Since then that >> player carefully chooses the card which he wants to play. >> >> Introduction of 2007 laws: "They are primarily designed not as >> punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of >> situations where nonoffenders >> may otherwise be damaged" >> If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false >> claimers and misbehaviourisms. >> I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good >> company: Robert Wolff etc. >> >> Juuso Leikola >> Finland >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 5 14:16:49 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:16:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: <000d01c9878b$954e2460$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> <000d01c9878b$954e2460$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498AE6C1.4070206@jldata.fi> Actually I wrote only: If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false claimers and misbehaviourisms. I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good company: Robert Wolff etc. I am accusing, at least yet, you from nothing, only pointing, that if Law will be used that way, it is brutal and illegal, up to my mind. I am relieved, if I understood your writing wrong. Using Law as hammer is not proper way educate players. The tenor in your words "if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly." put me think that you may not give ruling only the case but educating purposes also. PP's instead are very proper way to educate. Juuso Bystry wrote: >> Bystry wrote: >> Wrong? Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that >> there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much >> more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive >> ones. I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players >> who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I >> observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some >> places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. >> > Strange? > >> Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, >> > people > >> will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. >> >> I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand >> constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an >> irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would >> advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give >> PPs. But once that player overdid, he failed to draw back the card in a >> right moment, the opponents called a TD and he ruled that the card "was in >> position...", so it was played. It resulted in a cold zero and falling >> > from > >> the second place to 7th or 8th (I don't remeber exactly). Since then that >> player carefully chooses the card which he wants to play. >> > > [Jusso] > > >> Introduction of 2007 laws: "They are primarily designed not as >> punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of >> situations where nonoffenders >> may otherwise be damaged" >> If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false >> claimers and misbehaviourisms. >> I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good >> company: Robert Wolff etc. >> > > And I think that you have no idea what you're writing about. Read my text > again and show me in which point did I advocate illegal or "brutal" use of > laws. > > I may understand that in your opinion my beliefs are too harsh, it is your > holy right to have such an opinion. But if you accuse me of promoting > illegality, that is totally unfounded and offensive. I don't need an > apology, next time simply consider the merit *before* you write something. > > Now to your accusation of "brutality". I'm a bridge player. I spend > significant amount of money to participate in bridge tournaments. For this > money I (theoretically) have a right to play a given number of boards under > the bridge laws. When my opponents infract the laws and as a result I'm > unable to play (at least normally) a board, I just lost a part of my due > pleasure. Adjusting the result to an average expectation is no real > indemnity, I have absolutely no satisfaction if TDs are "playing" or > deciding my scores instead of me, and I wouldn't have even if they were > giving me tops every time (although then at least my score wouldn't suffer). > > So is it really so strange that I wish to see fewer infractions made? Am I a > tyrant or a sadist just because I want to see a game played according to its > rules, like thousands of other games? The lawmakers think that it is enough > to "repair" the damage. No, the best way is to *avoid* it. It is a principle > engraved into humanity. We repair, yes, but first of all we are trying to > prevent. > > What was so appalling in my story? I described a player who irritated nearly > all of his opponents with his inappropriate behavior. How would you feel if > I was for example constantly jawing when playing against you, thus putting > you off stride? Would you request me to stop? Sure, but I wouldn't comply. > Would you call a TD then? Sure, but I wouldn't comply to his request. Would > you support giving me a PP then? I'm sure that the answer is "yes". So you > call me "brutal" because I wanted a PP for that player? You call me "brutal" > because I support *fully lawful* TD's ruling of "a played card" which costed > that guy some tournament places? You call me "brutal" because I'm happy that > he abandoned his bad habit? > > It is really high time to stop to treat bridge players as small children in > a sandpit who will take their toys and go home, just because they get > penalised for something. Ask yourself - do we want a game decided by bridge > players' skills at the table, or by TDs'/ACs' skills outside it. Isn't it > enough that some events were decided in the Committee rooms (Reisinger, > quarter-final of BB, final of BB and many other of lesser significance), do > we have to touch football or boxing? > > >> Juuso Leikola >> Finland >> > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 15:41:02 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:41:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <12819B7A-8664-4F2E-A1AB-0B73547FBBCC@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the > side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with > the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > > Scenario One trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > --- J432 > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > Scenario Two trump suit > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > J432 --- > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? We've had this before. I argued strongly that RHO should get a trick in scenario one, but declarer gets them all in scenario two. This still feels right to me. But I had to look twice this time... Yesterday, before Richard shattered my illusion, I went and (so foolishly, I now realize, that I am embarrassed to repeat it) suggested a potential thresshold test for irrationality which would make starting this suit with the ace irrational, giving declarer his claim in both positions. So I withdraw my implied question as to whether it would be acceptable as a threshhold test, and ask instead (of those not inclined to dismiss my previous nonsense out of hand and ignore it entirely) whether it would be acceptable as a necessary but not sufficient condition. My obvious blind spot was the result of thinking solely in the context of two- to four-card examples (from the "a question" thread), where the issue requiring resolution was the presense of an outstanding card overlooked by the claimer. It might still be useful in those particular cases, but breaks down completely on, for example, 13-card claims. Oops. Awkward. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 15:53:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 09:53:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 01:01:46 -0500, wrote: > >> Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the >> side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with >> the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". >> >> >> Scenario One trump suit >> >> Dummy >> KQT98 >> LHO RHO >> --- J432 >> Declarer >> A765 >> >> How would you rule if declarer was: >> >> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >> >> (b) The Unlucky Expert? >> >> >> Scenario Two trump suit >> >> Dummy >> KQT98 >> LHO RHO >> J432 --- >> Declarer >> A765 >> >> How would you rule if declarer was: >> >> (a) Mrs Guggenheim? >> >> (b) The Unlucky Expert? > > I saw a club player misplay this combination last week. The > ordinary club > player is more likely to lead the ace first than the K. But I won't > give > that player the first contract. There is no way to miss on the second > contract. > > I think it goes beyond merely careless for an expert to misplay this > combination. But the expert went beyond merely careless just to > claim in > this situation. I will crawl inside the expert's head and say that the > expert did not realize that the king needed to be played first. So > I won't > give the expert the first contract either. I know that doesn't exactly > follow the law and the AC might over-rule me. I'd say it not only follows the law, but could serve as the textbook example of the purpose of that vexing footnote. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 16:11:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:11:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs In-Reply-To: <49895A71.9060907@ulb.ac.be> References: <49895A71.9060907@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <14DC456C-1E10-431F-A175-26A2EF308155@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > the guy who's careless enough not to state his > line is careless enough not to have seen the problem. That's worded a bit harshly. I may be more tolerant than Alain of the technical infraction of failing to "state [a] line" per se. I'd have written, "The guy who's careless enough not to mention the problem is careless enough not to have seen the problem." Often a word or two suffices: "Safety play." "Unblocking." "Cross- ruff." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 5 16:26:13 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:26:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498B0515.7080203@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : >> will crawl inside the expert's head and say that the >> expert did not realize that the king needed to be played first. So >> I won't >> give the expert the first contract either. I know that doesn't exactly >> follow the law and the AC might over-rule me. >> > > I'd say it not only follows the law, but could serve as the textbook > example of the purpose of that vexing footnote. > > AG: many of us consider that playing the suit the wrong way is only 'carelss', not really 'irrational', and that not explaining how one intends to play the suit is a fairly strong indication that one didn't realize the potential problem. And that seems OK. What about this small variation : declarer tables his hand, says 'we all know how to play the combination in spades' and claims 13 tricks. Now it appears that he had the specific problem in mind, so it would be irrational not to play the right way. Or would it ? But what if Mrs. Guggenheim does the same? Couldn't it be that she knows there is a way to ensure her tricks, but she doesn't know which ? Perhaps that's what the distinction about player level was thought to cover. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 16:26:25 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:26:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <9660AD50-E3A4-4E77-8B5C-B531A3727AD6@starpower.net> On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:27 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dummy has 874 of hearts and some high cards. There is still one trump > outside, the 6. Declarer needs all remaining tricks. > > (NB : recent, live case) > > a) Declarer says 'Heart.. Just made'. > Should we allow him his contract, based on the assumption that it > would > be irrational to play a small heart ? Yes. > b) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he knows about the H6, but has > miscounted his tricks) > It would still bne irrational to play the small heart, but he did > claim > one off. Does it change anything ? No. If we presume that it would be irrational for "heart" to designate the small one in (a), it's just as irrational here. > c) Declarer says 'Heart. One off' (he thinks his hearts are equal and > the outstanding trump is the 9) > Do we assume he played the 4 ? No. As above. > d) I guess that those who say assessing claims includes reading > declarer's mind would decide differently on b) and c). But how do they > ascertain which is true ? If it weren't for the footnote, we would have to read minds (at least sufficiently to assess "class of player"). But as it is, we need only determine rationality, not intent. > NB : the actual case is slightly different. My pazrtner said 'Heart 8' > and wrote down one off, but since he couldn't go down after that, he > scored his contract. Careful claims are useful, even when wrong. IMO, he didn't gain any matchpoints, but he certainly avoided a discussion, a TD call, and possibly an AC hearing. Careful claims are useful, even when irrelevant to the outcome. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 16:45:01 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 10:45:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <000101c986c0$77a33fc0$66e9bf40$@no> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <1A21A66C-369C-48B8-B9F7-BAA07A986FFD@starpower.net> <000301c98598$bf78fbb0$3e6af310$@no> <4988291E.5000807@talktalk.net> <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <1E105A10-7C2B-49B9-85C6-79D9E5E4AD59@starpower.net> <000601c9864d$b031fe80$1095fb80$@no> <49896875.5000503@skynet.be> <000101c986c0$77a33fc0$66e9bf40$@no> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > As a starter I am very unhappy with the "for the class of player" > clause in > the footnote to Law 70. I have seen sufficient silly mistakes by > "experts" > to trust them infallible, especially when they begin to get > exhausted after > long sessions. My preference would have been to maintain the term > "irrational" while discarding the clause "class of player". Sven shouldn't be unhappy, because the footnote says what he wants it to say; he is reading it backwards. On Feb 4, 2009, at 1:01 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Declarer reaches 7S with solid side suits. Declarer wins the > side suit opening lead with the relevant ace, then claims with > the over-succinct announcement, "Drawing trumps". > > Dummy > KQT98 > LHO RHO > --- J432 > Declarer > A765 > > How would you rule if declarer was: > > (a) Mrs Guggenheim? > > (b) The Unlucky Expert? Imagine the footnote didn't exist. Mrs. G. makes careless and inferior plays all the time, like playing the A from hand first. For her, this is normal, and we would award a trick to RHO. U.E. does not normally make careless or inferior plays, so *for him* it would not be normal to start with the ace, and we would give him all the tricks. The footnote requires us to give U.E. the same result we gave Mrs. G. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bobpark at consolidated.net Thu Feb 5 18:16:38 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 12:16:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: >
Robert > Park wrote: >> ; >> : >> And to Herman: I still don't understand why you would award the best >> of all possible outcomes to someone who makes a defective claim. >> >> --Bob Park >> > > Put it like this, I don't understand either. > But then there are a number of things wrong in your sentence. > 1) "the best of all possible outcomes"? No, never! > This is what is wrong with blml. We find an interesting case, and we > discuss it endlessly. And so we think this is the only case. We ignore > all those others where we just apply the laws. > Of course I don't give the best of all possible outcomes. In the > Tenerife example, the best possible outcome if 4 tricks to declarer > (with defender unblocking his highest trump). And the Tenerife example > would not have been there if there were some other way for defender to > get a second trick. So of course I don't give the best of all possible > outcomes. > But it's true, I don't award the worst of all outcomes. Not because I > don't want to. But because I consider it to be not a possible outcome. > So if Robert wants to rephrase his question: why don't you consider > this outcome not possible - then I will answer it - and I think I have. > > 2) a defective claim. > These are not defective claims - well, not any more so than any other. > What I mean is this: any claim that we are called upon is a defective > claim. > > So if Robert wishes to know how I deal with the 300 or so claim > rulings I deal with every year, he can ask. But the question as put > here is senseless. > > Herman. > > > >
"Senseless? Does this come from the from the bashing engine we have been hearing about? The original situation was explained thus: "There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following case. Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and a high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. " Your ruling, Herman, (as I recall it) was that declarer should be awarded one trick...the best of all possible outcomes for him. I fail to see how you "know" (or even think it highly probable) that he would lead his high heart first. Absent that presumption, I fail to see how you can justify awarding declarer "the best of all possible outcomes." --Bob Park From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 18:28:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:28:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2009, at 10:16 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The Bridge World, January 1983, Page 18: > > Kaplan gave two relevant examples about incorrectly > claiming all the tricks. > > First example - > > WEST > S --- > H Q 6 > D K > C 7 > SOUTH > S K Q > H K > D Q > C --- > > South is on lead in a notrump contract, and claims the > last four tricks (forgetting that the DK is still > outstanding). > > Kaplan does not permit South to cash the three actual > winners first. > > Neither does Kaplan "Burn" South by ruling that South > instantly leads the DQ, then discards the HK on the C7, > giving South zero tricks. > > Instead, Kaplan rules that South chooses the unluckiest > of random (but not irrational) plays. Kaplan rules > that South cashes the HK, then leads the DQ, giving > South one trick. > > Second example - > > NORTH > S --- > H 6 4 > D A Q T 2 > C Q > WEST EAST > S --- S --- > H 7 H Q T 8 3 > D J 9 8 3 D 7 > C K J C T 4 > SOUTH > S --- > H A K J > D K 6 5 4 > C --- > > In a notrump contract, North (dummy) leads a heart, and > South successfully finesses the jack. South now claims > the rest, overlooking the possibility that diamonds do > not break. > > In the first example, where South thought all cards were > _already_ winners, Kaplan did not mention the "always > top down" rule. Here playing top cards first is relevant, > since South's claim is based on the fourth round of > diamonds _becoming_ top after three honours are cashed. > > On this second example, Kaplan rules that South is not > deemed to play the diamond honours in a sensible order, > thus revealing the marked finesse. Neither is South > deemed to cash the heart honours first, catching West in > a minor suit squeeze. > > On the other hand, Kaplan does not award West three tricks > with the DJ, CK and CJ. Kaplan rules that, after declarer > sees East show out twice in diamonds and the DJ fail to > appear, that it would be irrational for declarer not to > then cash HA and HK before playing a fourth diamond. > Kaplan therefore rules that West gets only one trick. These are not-so-obvious extensions of the basic principles at work here. When claimer's perceived winners are some combination of actual winners and actual losers, he is deemed to play them in the least advantageous order, but is not required to specify that he doesn't plan to throw any of them away. > * * * > > I suggest that Ton Kooijman's forthcoming Appendix to the > Laws should also contain similar indicative examples about > the resolution of disputed claims. > > * * * > > The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: > > NORTH > S A K Q T 3 > H T 9 8 7 > D 6 5 4 > C K > WEST EAST > S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 > H J 5 4 H --- > D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 > C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 > SOUTH > S 8 4 > H A K Q 6 3 2 > D A 8 2 > C A 3 > > Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, > saying, "Pulling trumps." > > How would you rule? Down one. Declarer has failed to realize that he has only twelve, not thirteen, tricks off the top, and there is no reason to presume that he will see the need for a 13th until he runs out of winners after trick 12. > Case 2. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the > diamond lead, draws trumps in three rounds, plays to > the spade ace, cashes the spade king - and _now_ > claims the balance with no statement. > > How would you rule? Making seven. This declarer, obviously, knew that he had 12 tricks, was looking for his 13th, and found it. He made his claim at precisely the point at which the inevitable success of his obvious play for a 13th trick manifested itself. His failure to explicitly point out to his opponents what they just saw for themselves is a mere technicality about which I will not quibble. > Case 3. South, declarer at six notrump, wins the > diamond lead and faces his cards, saying, "I have > six heart tricks, three spades, two clubs and one > diamond - if the spade jack falls I have 13, > otherwise 12." > > How would you rule? Down (not stopping to compute how many). Because of the entry issues, he will fail if he attempts to cash his stated top tricks in the wrong order, but he has given no indication that he is aware of the need to deal with this. > On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:11 AM, Eric Landau wrote: > >> I'd have written, "The guy who's careless enough not to mention >> the problem is careless enough not to have seen the problem." Had this declarer said as little as, "I'll be careful with my entries," I'd rule making six. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 18:52:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:52:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing In-Reply-To: <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> References: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman has reached the point at which the merits of moderated lists, from which assholes and liars may be ejected, become obvious. On Feb 5, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Take that last time I complained, about Eric. Not only did Eric > believe > he was right from the mere fact that he was in a group of 5 against me > alone, What Eric actually wrote was, "Richard, Marvin, Sven, David, Eric and Herman all have their own idiosyncratic notions about how the claim laws should ideally be interpreted." That is the exact opposite of what Herman claims I said. > but he had the gall to imply that I ruled against what I believed > the laws were. What Eric actually wrote was, "Herman... insists on his entitlement to rule according to his own... interpretation of the law." That is the exact opposite of what Herman claims I said. > As if my opinion on what the laws are are of no worth > whatsoever. What Eric actually wrote was that his entire argument "has nothing to do with the merits of individual interpretations of the law". That is the exact opposite of what Herman claims I said. > That is Herman-beshing. That is Herman flagrantly and deliberately misrepresenting the statements of others to lend false credence to his own. I apologize to anyone other than Herman who may find the above offensive, but it needed saying. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 5 19:26:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:26:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs In-Reply-To: <498B0515.7080203@ulb.ac.be> References: <498B0515.7080203@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2009, at 10:26 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Eric Landau a ?crit : > >>> will crawl inside the expert's head and say that the >>> expert did not realize that the king needed to be played first. So >>> I won't >>> give the expert the first contract either. I know that doesn't >>> exactly >>> follow the law and the AC might over-rule me. >> >> I'd say it not only follows the law, but could serve as the textbook >> example of the purpose of that vexing footnote. > > AG: many of us consider that playing the suit the wrong way is only > 'carelss', not really 'irrational', and that not explaining how one > intends to play the suit is a fairly strong indication that one didn't > realize the potential problem. And that seems OK. Agreed. > What about this small variation : declarer tables his hand, says > 'we all > know how to play the combination in spades' and claims 13 tricks. > > Now it appears that he had the specific problem in mind, so it > would be > irrational not to play the right way. Or would it ? IMO, yes it would. > But what if Mrs. Guggenheim does the same? Couldn't it be that she > knows > there is a way to ensure her tricks, but she doesn't know which ? > Perhaps that's what the distinction about player level was thought > to cover. One-suit combinations aren't rocket science. Even a rank beginner gets it right if someone demonstrates the problem to be solved. The Mrs. Guggenheims of the world are more likely to make the right play because someone said it was the right play and they memorized it than to understand why they're doing it that way. Change the layout to KQ10x opposite A9xxx, with the Jxxx over the 10. Some committees would rule that the expert must lose a trick, but might let Mrs. Guggenheim convince them to give it to her because they believe her statement that she always plays her trumps from the short side first no matter what. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 5 19:34:39 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 19:34:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B In-Reply-To: <498AD7D3.8010106@ulb.ac.be> References: <6BC8BD5214174606B8A56FF4E0C81F3A@home4paplwv76s> <1LS5Yt-1NKNvc0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><000b01c9814f$046b2520$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c98158$b58b9a20$20a2ce60$@no> <001a01c98175$3e3e0b20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> <001601c98784$8236ebc0$86a4c340$@no> <498AD7D3.8010106@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001501c987c0$67d36e70$377a4b50$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> If 25 applies, how TD can assure that there was not change of mind ( > >> even when change was very fast), was south's first call lapse, thinking > >> bidding 1nt-2c. > >> > > > > If the Director is satisfied (from his investigation) that the double by > > South was inadvertent (for a redouble) then he shall apply Law 25A and allow > > the change of the call to the redouble. This is something the Director must > > judge. > > > > If the Director rules that Law 25A does not apply then Law 36B applies, end > > of story. > > > That's unfair ! > We all know the TD will apply L25, then if needed L36, according to what > really happened. The question was : how does the TD ascertain what > happened ? > > And I'll add : What does he need to take into account ? What should his > investigation be ? And if the re-doubler is so quick of mind, should we > believe he tells the truth when he says he pulled the wrong card ? The director must establish to the best of his ability the facts and judge whether in his opinion the facts corroborates an assertion that the double was inadvertent. Like any other judgment ruling by the director this one can also be appealed. I don't see why this procedure is unfair? Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 5 22:16:47 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:16:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498B573F.2060904@aol.com> You have no basis to say you thought I had more sense than.... It is an insult, incidentally, you are not the one to judge how much sense others have. The correct (and polite) statement would be, "I disagree with you". You seem to equate disagreement with lack of sense. And, incidentally, the word I used was "bullshit". Your email (below) confirms my usage in my opinion. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff, I thought you had more sense than this. > > Whatever the word, and as a native English speaker I allow you to choose > the best one yet, there is a qualitative difference between the trumps > and the side suits in the situation we are discussing here. > > Side suits are Rectangular: There are, in combined opponents' hands, the > same number or less of them than there higher ones in claimer's hand > combined with that of claimer's partner. > > The Trump suit is Square: There are, in opponent's hands, no more at all. > > I know full well that Squares are also Rectangles. > > But to say that with one Square and 3 Oblongs (I had to look that word > up), there is no difference between the four suits because they are all > Rectangles, is, quite basically, wrong. > > And if you want to close a discussion because you can no longer win it, > then please say so, and don't drop out with words like moonshine. > > Herman. > > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Again, last posting. >> >> Bullshit! Or as Bystry would say, "moonshine". "Free" is no better and >> irrelevant. It changes nothing and from the meaning of the word in >> English is inappropriate. As Bystry says, "end of the discussion"; I >> refuse to waste any more time on this. You can continue with your >> compulsions but not on my time. JE >> >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Jeff Easterson wrote: >>>> I said I wasn't going to continue the discussion but shall violate that >>>> promise. >>>> >>>> I doubt that your command of English is better than mine ("high") but >>>> that isn't terribly relative. It is unimportant if we say "high" or >>>> "good" or "a winner" or whatever. The meaning is clear to all. >>>> Questioning the usage of "high" is grasping a straw and a diversion, not >>>> relevant. >>>> >>> See my post somewhere else: You are absolutely right in calling high >>> trumps the same as high side-suits. But you are wrong in deducing that >>> this means there is no difference. There are at least two differences: >>> 1) they are trumps and can be used to get back in >>> 2) there are no outstanding cards of the "free" trump suit. >>> >>> You are right in saying trumps are just as "high" as side suits. >>> But I am also right in saying trumps are better than "high", they are >>> "free" (and trumps!) >>> >>> And so if you criticise me for saying that there is a difference between >>> trumps and side suits, then you are wrong (in criticising me). >>> >>>> I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade >>>> and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase >>>> anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", >>>> "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are >>>> discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is >>>> a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a >>>> general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) >>>> >>> No, these words are not the same. "high" means there are no higher cards >>> outstanding. "free" (indeed a better word than "last") means there are >>> no cards outstanding. To say that they have the same meaning is simply >>> wrong. >>> >>>> Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and >>>> waste of time. >>> I was giving an actual example from real life - that cannot be a waste >>> of time. >>> >>>> Stop giving examples and deal with the problem at hand. >>>> I clearly stated that the other two hands were irrelevant, that included >>>> the dummy. To restate the original problem (as far as I recall, may >>>> have confused unimportant details): declarer has the trump 6 and a high >>>> spade (might have been a heart) and a defender has the trump 8 and a >>>> high heart (might have been a spade). You have my permission to call >>>> any of these cards "high", "good", "winner", "last", "master" or >>>> whatever you like. And, I repeat, the other hands are, in this problem, >>>> irrelevant. Declarer (claimer) claims the last two tricks (implication) >>>> by showing his cards and saying he believes there are no more trumps >>>> out. >>> I understand the case completely. >>> >>>> The clear inference is that he believes both cards are good >>>> (winners, high, whatever you like). >>> That is your inference. My inference is that he believes one card to be >>> "high" and one trump to be "free". >>> >>>> He makes no further statement, does >>>> not say in which order he proposes to play these last two cards. I >>>> shan't waste more time and space by mentioning that this is an improper, >>>> or incomplete, claim. Your position, as I understand it, is that he >>>> would automatically play the high (not trump) card first and that it >>>> would not be normal (or it would be irrational?) to play the trump >>>> first. >>> Indeed. As one of your (adopted) countrymen put it: "in Praxis" in >>> practice no-one plays the trump first. >>> >>>> That seems to be your position and I, of course, must accept it, >>>> assume you are serious. In the correspondence I have had (blml and >>>> privately from other TDs) no one else shares this belief, there have >>>> been about 30-35 others who say either card could normally, or possibly, >>>> be played. A few have even been baffled and asked in unbelief what >>>> could be the possible reason to not give the defenders 2 tricks. >>>> >>>> Okay, as they say in Germany at football matches, "Ende der Durchsage"; >>>> that is, this is definitely my last attempt to discuss this. But again, >>>> as the Germans say, "Nichts f?r ungut!" (Engl. equivalent doesn't occur >>>> to me and you speak German I think.) Ciao, JE >>>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 5 22:25:24 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:25:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> Did anyone else notice that Herman didn't even mention the original case in his response to Robert? I wonder why. JE Robert Park schrieb: > Herman De Wael wrote: >>
Robert >> Park wrote: >>> ; >>> : >>> And to Herman: I still don't understand why you would award the best >>> of all possible outcomes to someone who makes a defective claim. >>> >>> --Bob Park >>> >> Put it like this, I don't understand either. >> But then there are a number of things wrong in your sentence. >> 1) "the best of all possible outcomes"? No, never! >> This is what is wrong with blml. We find an interesting case, and we >> discuss it endlessly. And so we think this is the only case. We ignore >> all those others where we just apply the laws. >> Of course I don't give the best of all possible outcomes. In the >> Tenerife example, the best possible outcome if 4 tricks to declarer >> (with defender unblocking his highest trump). And the Tenerife example >> would not have been there if there were some other way for defender to >> get a second trick. So of course I don't give the best of all possible >> outcomes. >> But it's true, I don't award the worst of all outcomes. Not because I >> don't want to. But because I consider it to be not a possible outcome. >> So if Robert wants to rephrase his question: why don't you consider >> this outcome not possible - then I will answer it - and I think I have. >> >> 2) a defective claim. >> These are not defective claims - well, not any more so than any other. >> What I mean is this: any claim that we are called upon is a defective >> claim. >> >> So if Robert wishes to know how I deal with the 300 or so claim >> rulings I deal with every year, he can ask. But the question as put >> here is senseless. >> >> Herman. >> >> >> >>
> > "Senseless? Does this come from the from the bashing engine we have been > hearing about? > > The original situation was explained thus: > > "There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following > case. Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and > a high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands > are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards > (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He > makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last > two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. " > > Your ruling, Herman, (as I recall it) was that declarer should be > awarded one trick...the best of all possible outcomes for him. > > I fail to see how you "know" (or even think it highly probable) that he > would lead his high heart first. Absent that presumption, I fail to see > how you can justify awarding declarer "the best of all possible outcomes." > > --Bob Park > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrmayne at mindspring.com Thu Feb 5 22:37:22 2009 From: jrmayne at mindspring.com (John R. Mayne) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 16:37:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [blml] More on moron claims Message-ID: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> This may have been discussed in one of these threads, but I missed it. Still, I think this is a clarifying example of the claim law problem related to irrational statements. The Bridge World had a claim position like this about year ago: 987654 AQJT32 In TBW's account, declarer tries to concede a trick in the suit after his finesse fetches an outshow from LHO. The appeals committee then gives the trick back to declarer, and is roundly mocked. While there is plenty of good mockery to be had, I'm unconvinced the appeals committee earned it. Don't the laws require this of a good player? Law 71 - both the 1997 and 2007 versions - specifically states that a concession shall be cancelled if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. (Normal, as ever, includes careless or inferior, but not irrational.) The law does not, anywhere, bind our conceding hero to either an implicit or stated line of play - even had declarer said: "I am finessing the spades unsuccessfully; thus I will lose a trick," that would still be abnormal, and thus the concession should be cancelled. It would be a simple fix to add "consistent with the concession (or claim, as the case may be) statement" to avoid this sort of bizarre, anti-bridge ruling. But as bizarre as it was, I think that ruling was the right one. Have we beaten this to death, or am I clearly wrong? Shouldn't the claim statement always have some bearing on the result? I've seen the argument here that if the person says it, it must not be irrational for them, but I find that argument rather less than convincing; I've said things and done things that are irrational even for me. The claim law also doesn't factor in forgetfulness. Twenty years ago, I made a rather memorable claim that was, due to a slight error about whether an ace had been played, a six-trick compression play. I let the opponents have the tricks - but it was a clearly irrational play for my class of player. The fact that I *did* forget the ace out ought not be factored in under the current laws - and, in fact, the claim makes no proviso for it except for the case of drawing trumps. The claim law, at the very least, should take in the player's perception of the cards played in determining rationality. --JRM From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 5 22:54:10 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 22:54:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: <498ADAF7.4060205@ulb.ac.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> <498ADAF7.4060205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <498B6002.7010302@aol.com> How do you take away 3 tricks in a 2 card end position? (That was the original problem.) This disturbed me the first time I read it. It might be appropriate to pay more attention to the problem as stated before going off on tangents. JE Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: > Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point that many >> of you need to realise. >> >> Lapinjatka wrote: >> >>> Bystry wrote: >>> Wrong? >>> >> I have absolutely no idea what you are referring to. Your response is to >> a message in which the word wrong does not seem to appear. >> >> >>> Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that >>> there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much >>> more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive >>> ones. > I hope Lapinjatka didn't mean that inattentive people are the same that > make faulty claims, fail to alert, transmit UI or infract in other ways > that are directly against the game's spirit (as opposed to, say, IBs, > which are against the game's mechanics). I might even feel offended. > > >>> I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players >>> who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I >>> observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some >>> places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? >>> Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people >>> will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. >>> >>> > Please notice that, in order to change this, TFLB provides us with PPs. > Not with artificial scores. > Feel free to be harsh in assessing PPs to experienced players who don't > follow correct procedure. > Do not give their opponents an advantage for this reason only. > >> This player made the mistake of forgetting a trump. That mistake will >> most often cost him a trick, and that is it's own reason why he should >> not do it - nothing the TD needs to do. After all, this mistake is not >> against the laws - only the partner will object. Now sometimes a player >> gets "lucky" and the mistake he makes does not cost him anything. Like >> in this case where the outstanding trump was high anyway. >> >> But there is no reason why the TD should take away 3 tricks off this >> player "to teach him a lesson". >> >> > AG : I think Herman has it right. > >> >>> I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand >>> constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an >>> irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would >>> advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give >>> PPs. > AG : Perhaps that's what's wrong. In my view, calling the detached card > a played card was against the laws, no matter how strong the TD wanted > to make that habit stop. > But telling the player that he'd get a PP whenever he acts in this way, > then actually inflicting PPs, would be perfectly legal, as efficient, > and fair to the field. > > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 5 23:43:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:43:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] More on moron claims In-Reply-To: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:37:22 -0500, John R. Mayne wrote: > This may have been discussed in one of these threads, but I missed it. > Still, I think this is a clarifying example of the claim law problem > related to irrational statements. > > The Bridge World had a claim position like this about year ago: > > 987654 > > AQJT32 > > In TBW's account, declarer tries to concede a trick in the suit after > his finesse fetches an outshow from LHO. The appeals committee then > gives the trick back to declarer, and is roundly mocked. While there is > plenty of good mockery to be had, I'm unconvinced the appeals committee > earned it. Don't the laws require this of a good player? > > Law 71 - both the 1997 and 2007 versions - specifically states that a > concession shall be cancelled if a player has conceded a trick that > could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. (Normal, as > ever, includes careless or inferior, but not irrational.) > > The law does not, anywhere, bind our conceding hero to either an > implicit or stated line of play - even had declarer said: "I am > finessing the spades unsuccessfully; thus I will lose a trick," that > would still be abnormal, and thus the concession should be cancelled. > > It would be a simple fix to add "consistent with the concession (or > claim, as the case may be) statement" to avoid this sort of bizarre, > anti-bridge ruling. But as bizarre as it was, I think that ruling was > the right one. > > Have we beaten this to death, or am I clearly wrong? Shouldn't the claim > statement always have some bearing on the result? I've seen the argument > here that if the person says it, it must not be irrational for them, but > I find that argument rather less than convincing; I've said things and > done things that are irrational even for me. > > The claim law also doesn't factor in forgetfulness. Twenty years ago, I > made a rather memorable claim that was, due to a slight error about > whether an ace had been played, a six-trick compression play. I let the > opponents have the tricks - but it was a clearly irrational play for my > class of player. The fact that I *did* forget the ace out ought not be > factored in under the current laws - and, in fact, the claim makes no > proviso for it except for the case of drawing trumps. The claim law, at > the very least, should take in the player's perception of the cards > played in determining rationality. > > --JRM > I pretty much agree with everything you have said. I think that directors take into account the claim/concession statement to determine the awarness of the player and hence the "normal" lines of play. So when the player concedes a trick in your example, that suggests that the player thinks it is Kx off-side. Given that awareness, it is reasonable ("normal") to play the queen to the first trick. Therefore, the concession stands. I am sympathetic to the AC, but it was making an overly straightforward interpretation of the laws. They have to realize that "class of player" should be interpreted as "class of player with that awareness". Or something like that. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 5 23:59:06 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:59:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> Message-ID: On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:49:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Marvin L French >> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite >> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal >> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good >> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But >> there was no "original clarification statement." > > Here, although you most likely are more familiar with the English (excuse > me: American) language than I am I have a distinct impression that you > are > reading the laws like a certain figure is said to read the Holy Bible. > > I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and every" rather > than "at least one". And I am convinced that this is the intention with > Law > 70E1, an understanding that I consider consistent with a similar clause > in > Law 70D1 "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an interpretation for "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's example, and it works probably 99% of the time. But I think I finally found a counter example in which "each and every": Declarer, who is in dummy, claims the rest, saying that he will cash the ace of spades and lead a club to his hand, and that his hand is already high. A Q10x -- x x x AJx -- -- xx x xxx -- K -- AKQ10 Because declarer thinks all the cards in his hand are high, it is reasonable that he pitch the 10 of clubs on the high spade. Then after to crossing to hand in clubs, it is reasonable to play the king of hearts first. LHO wins, with RHO showing out. I think L7E1 was intended to allow declarer to now take the heart finesse. However, RHO would not show out in hearts in each and every normal line of play. Pitching the K of hearts on the ace of spades is normal, and indeed what a director would probably enforce if the K of hearts was high and the 10 of clubs would not be good at the end. In that line of play, RHO never shows out in hearts. Again, to me the finesse should be allowed in a given line of play if a player has showed out IN THAT line of play. Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 6 00:01:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:01:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>The Bridge World, January 1983, page 20: >> >> NORTH >> S A K Q T 3 >> H T 9 8 7 >> D 6 5 4 >> C K >>WEST EAST >>S 7 6 S J 9 5 2 >>H J 5 4 H --- >>D Q J T 7 D K 9 3 >>C J 8 5 2 C Q T 9 7 6 4 >> SOUTH >> S 8 4 >> H A K Q 6 3 2 >> D A 8 2 >> C A 3 >> >>Case 1. South, declarer at seven hearts, wins the >>queen-of-diamonds lead and lays down his cards, >>saying, "Pulling trumps." >> >>How would you rule? Eric Landau (6th February 2009): >Down one. Declarer has failed to realize that he has only >twelve, not thirteen, tricks off the top, and there is no >reason to presume that he will see the need for a 13th until >he runs out of winners after trick 12. Herman De Wael (20th May 2003) mostly concurred: >>>If I am correct in seeing that a correct line is: >>>-trumps, not noticing that we have to get back into hand >>>-king of clubs >>>-3 spades >>>-spade ruff >>>-ace of clubs >>>-back to table in trumps >>>-spade >>>-diamond ruff >>>Then I am ruling one down for a player of my level of play >>>- far too many chances of getting it wrong. >>>I would not rule D[avid] B[urn] down, though. Richard Hills (6th February 2009): It seems to me that here we have Herman bashing ...Herman. :-) The 2003 Herman did not mention the 2009 Herman's iron rule of "trumps last". If that iron rule is in fact universal whenever all the tricks are incorrectly claimed, then declarer's miscount of 12 tricks as 13 does not matter. The the ten of hearts will "always" be unplayed, so remain as an entry for the ten of spades after the spade jack is ruffed out. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 6 02:07:34 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:07:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> Message-ID: <000001c987f7$4b1f63b0$e15e2b10$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:49:48 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > > On Behalf Of Marvin L French > > >> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite > >> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal > >> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good > >> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But > >> there was no "original clarification statement." > > > > Here, although you most likely are more familiar with the English (excuse > > me: American) language than I am I have a distinct impression that you > > are > > reading the laws like a certain figure is said to read the Holy Bible. > > > > I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and every" rather > > than "at least one". And I am convinced that this is the intention with > > Law > > 70E1, an understanding that I consider consistent with a similar clause > > in > > Law 70D1 > > "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an interpretation for > "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's example, and it works probably 99% > of the time. But I think I finally found a counter example in which "each > and every": > > Declarer, who is in dummy, claims the rest, saying that he will cash the > ace of spades and lead a club to his hand, and that his hand is already > high. > > A > Q10x > -- > x > > x x > AJx -- > -- xx > x xxx > > -- > K > -- > AKQ10 > > Because declarer thinks all the cards in his hand are high, it is > reasonable that he pitch the 10 of clubs on the high spade. Then after to > crossing to hand in clubs, it is reasonable to play the king of hearts > first. LHO wins, with RHO showing out. I think L7E1 was intended to allow > declarer to now take the heart finesse. > > However, RHO would not show out in hearts in each and every normal line of > play. Pitching the K of hearts on the ace of spades is normal, and indeed > what a director would probably enforce if the K of hearts was high and the > 10 of clubs would not be good at the end. In that line of play, RHO never > shows out in hearts. > > Again, to me the finesse should be allowed in a given line of play if a > player has showed out IN THAT line of play. > > Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree I don't get it. What on earth has East showing out in hearts to do with this claim? The crucial point is only which card declarer will pitch on his Ace of Spades. I should allow the claim with no problem if declarer instead of saying that his hand is all high had said that his clubs are high (implying that he knows his King of Hearts is a looser) of if he had stated that he will pitch his King of Hearts on the Ace of Spades. However, as he specifically stated that he will lead a club to his hand after cashing the Ace of Spades (and not just said that he will enter his hand) I tend to accept that he was fully aware of his King of Hearts being a loser even though he didn't explicitly say so. Sven. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 6 02:10:19 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 01:10:19 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <25966682-1D3E-4CE8-8E8B-73FD069135F0@starpower.net> References: <000c01c98600$a58e05c0$f0aa1140$@no> <000001c9865c$337ef000$9a7cd000$@no> <49890437.5050505@talktalk.net> <25966682-1D3E-4CE8-8E8B-73FD069135F0@starpower.net> Message-ID: <498B8DFB.6000502@talktalk.net> Eric Landau .......... S:2 .......... H:AJ H:KQ D:A .......... S:A .......... H:2 .......... D:K Nigel doesn't tell us exactly what declarer did here. That he "lost the place and is a trick short of his claim" suggests that he has claimed two tricks thinking there were two to go, rather than claiming three tricks thinking he had a third winner. The latter case is uninteresting, anyway; he is presumed to cash his actual winners and attempt to cash his thought-to-be winner before any other cards but otherwise in the least advantageous order. So I assume Nigel meant to address the (far more interesting) question of whether a declarer in this position, having claimed two (of the last three) tricks, might be awarded the third on the squeeze per L70E1, which gives declarer the benefit of an "unstated line of play" if "failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational". Let's see... I certainly wouldn't allow declarer to profit from *that* squeeze, but I don't think that's what Nigel meant. It behooves us to get our examples straight. Since we have determined that declarer claimed for two tricks, we assume that he intends to cash his two aces and give up the last. He gets two tricks. Since we can only take from his statement that he will cash two aces, we may assume that he believes that the order in which they are cashed doesn't matter. This is analogous to the trump-and-high-side-card case in the "a question" thread. Since it is to his disadvantage to cash the HA first, then return to the SA, we "impose" that line of play. To get where Nigel wants to go, change North's S2 to the D2. Then South, if he is to take his two aces now, has no choice; he must play the SA at trick 11. We do not presume that he will fail to notice West's card. In that layout, he gets three tricks, notwithstanding that he "has obviously completely lost the place and is a trick short of his claim". I would guess this is the case giving Nigel heartburn. But wait; we're not done! Change North's S2 to the C2 (and give the unseen East hand some higher club(s)), and now North gets only two tricks. In the previous example we let him keep the HJ after seeing West's HQ (but not the HK, yet!), because it would be clearly "irrational" (still in L70!) to pitch the HJ in order to retain the D2 when holding the DK in hand (distribute three each of the 46 cards not now held by N-S at random to E-W, and there is no layout in which it can gain to keep the D2). But the C2 is a horse -- or rather a card -- of a different color; it is not clearly irrational to keep it, so we impose the discard of the HJ on the SA. To close the circle, keep the C2 but take away East's clubs. Then declarer has a top winner he doesn't know about, so we make him throw it away to keep the "losing" HJ, but then the HJ scores, and he gets three tricks anyhow. Woo! On rereading the above, I am struck by that last parenthetical (next- to-last paragraph). It suggests a reasonable starting point for a threshhold test of "irrational" that should satisfy all but the most extreme string-'em-uppers. New thread, anyone? [Nigel] IMO, under current law, the director should rule against declarer in *all* the cases cited by Eric Landau. Declarer has claimed all the tricks, without specifying in what order his "winners" are to be cashed. - If he believes HK to be a winner, presumably, he does not mind cashing that "winner" first. - If he beieves SAJ to be winners, however, they remain winners even if an opponent discards HA. Eric Landau makes an important point. In real life the threats are more likely to be spot cards than honours, so even when a squeeze materializess, declarer will have to know which menace has been promoted to a winner; and he not even indicated which cards are menaces. Some BLMLers protest that they would never allow a declarer to get away with such deficient and spurious "claims". In *practice*, my impression is that directors and appeals committees do rule in favour of sufficiently popular and expert declarers. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 6 04:15:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:15:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! (was Claim law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498B8DFB.6000502@talktalk.net> Message-ID: A blmler asserted: [big snip] >In *practice*, my impression is that directors and appeals >committees do rule in favour of sufficiently popular and expert >declarers. J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Voice of Saruman": "The treacherous are ever distrustful," answered Gandalf wearily. Richard Hills counter-asserts: "The paranoid bunnies are ever distrustful," answers Richard wearily. (1) My impression is that a very small number of directors (whose licenses to direct should be revoked) and a very small number of appeals committee members (who should never have been invited to serve) do partisanly rule in favour of the popular declarers and against the unpopular declarers. But for a blmler to use "directors" and "appeals committees" with out any qualification gives me the "impression" that the blmler's intent was to smear _most_ directors and to smear _most_ appeals committees. (2) A universal iron rule (no, not the De :-) Wael rule) is that all bridge players think that they play better than they do. There is an old joke about Omar Sharif being called upon to testify in a court case. Lawyer: "Mr Sharif, please describe your qualifications." Omar: "I am a mediocre movie star and the best bridge player in the world." Afterwards... Friend: "Omar, why did you describe yourself as the best bridge in the world?" Omar: "What could I do? I was under oath to tell the truth." So all above-average bunnies think that they are experts. A very small number of these bunnies, frustrated at being "inexplicably" outplayed by real expert opponents, become paranoid and assume that these expert opponents gain unfair advantage (such as by the real experts capitalising on their friendship with directors). Richard Hills, 7th July 2004: >>>Many years ago, top Aussie player Annie Grenside was playing >>>in the Australian Women's Teams Championship. After an >>>infraction occurred at the table, she raised her hand and >>>called, >>>"Director, darling!" >>> >>>It so happened that Australia's CTD at that time was Annie's >>>then husband, Richard Grenside. >>> >>>:-) >>> >>>Of course, Richard Grenside gave a professional ruling, >>>despite his then wife being an interested party. John (MadDog) Probst, 8th July 2004: >>Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100- >>table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my >>rulings to appeal on various grounds: >> >>1) He hates me >>2) He's clueless >>3) He always rules against me. >> >>OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fed >>through the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend >>driving in the cork. John Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 6 07:05:30 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:05:30 +1100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A universal iron rule (no, not the De :-) Wael rule) is that all bridge players think that they play better than they do. There is an old joke about Omar Sharif being called upon to testify in a court case. Lawyer: "Mr Sharif, please describe your qualifications." Omar: "I am a mediocre movie star and the best bridge player in the world." Afterwards... Friend: "Omar, why did you describe yourself as the best bridge player in the world?" Omar: "What could I do? I was under oath to tell the truth." So all above-average bunnies think that they are experts. (And all Mister Smugs think that they are above-average bunnies.) Best wishes Richard Hills, smugly mediocre Laws guru and above-average bunny -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 6 07:47:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:47:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: William of Ockham (1285-1349): "Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of words required to explain anything" Herman De Wael suggested: [big snip] >And they try and gain an advantage from their being in a >majority. And that is Herman-bashing, and I don't consider >that to be a fair argumentative tool. Richard Hills fence-sits: Yes and no. Yes it is Herman-bashing if new and unprecedented terrain is being explored, and the majority is assumed to be in the right merely because it is the majority. No it is not Herman-bashing if old and settled terrain is being invaded by a De Wael iconoclast. Then the principle of "stare decisis" means that the previous consensus is deemed to be correct unless and until circumstances have demonstrably changed, or a competent Laws Committee has elected to reverse itself. (And an Appeals Committee lacks the competence of a Laws Committee.) For example: [Richard's unnecessary and wordy explanatory example snipped] 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 Feb 6 08:20:51 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:20:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> Message-ID: Lapinjatka: >...If 25 applies, how TD can assure that there was not change >of mind (even when change was very fast)... Richard Hills: As Alain Gottcheiner has noted, even if the TD deems that the original double was intended (albeit illegal), Law 25B applies before Law 36B can take effect. The speed of the change is not relevant to Law 25A. Edgar Kaplan gave a good example of speed irrelevance when opener did a lightning change "1H-zip*-1C". Opener held 5 hearts and 17 hcp, and thought he just-in-time remembered that he was now playing his new Precision system under Law 25A. But any Kaplanic TD rules not-in-time Law 25B. Lapinjatka: >...was south's first call lapse, thinking bidding 1nt-2c. Richard Hills: On the available facts, I would so rule. I follow the "stare decisis" tradition that a TD should be sceptical of Law 25A assertions when it is possible that a change of mind may well have occurred. (On the other hand, if a SAYC player opened 1H on a 5=1=3=4 shape, I would routinely permit a Law 25A change to a 1S opening.) So, under Law 25B, West may accept South's second call of redouble. If so, the auction continues. If not, only now does Law 36B apply. 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 *Why did the chicken cross the road? To get to the other side. Why did Superman beat the chicken across the road? Because Superman is faster than a speeding pullet. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 6 08:34:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:34:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bob Frick's example (modified so East has a legal number of cards): > A > Q10x > -- > x > >x x >AJx -- >-- x >x Jxx > > -- > K > -- > AKQ10 [snipped analysis of how Law 70E1 permits declarer to finesse H10] >Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree Richard Hills: Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. I disagree. When assessing the validity of a claim, what we assess is what could have "normally*" occurred at the table if the cards had been played out one-by-one with no claim. If declarer truly thought that his hand was high, and that he was never returning to dummy, then a Kaplanesque worst of random plays would be: 1. Ace of spades, ten of clubs discard 2. Ace of clubs 3. King of clubs, LHO discards her heart x and dummy... Declarer says, "Play anything," and dummy flashily discards the queen of hearts. Or, as declarers often do, declarer could flashily say, "Discard the queen of hearts - I do not need it." Given that declarer thinks dummy's cards are equally worthless, it cannot be abnormal* for declarer to discard the highest ranking one. Cooper Echoes, anyone? :-) 4. King of hearts winner, Ace of hearts oops, and the Jack of hearts can no longer be finessed. Two tricks to the defence, rather than the mere one trick Bob ruled. 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 Feb 6 08:58:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:58:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Willa Cather (1873-1947): "I like trees because they seem more resigned to the way they have to live than other things do." Eric Landau asserted: [big snip] >That is Herman flagrantly and deliberately misrepresenting the >statements of others to lend false credence to his own. > >I apologize to anyone other than Herman who may find the above >offensive, but it needed saying. Richard Hills, pedantic nerd with Asperger's Syndrome quibbles: I am not offended, merely believe Eric's statement is not quite accurate. As an Aspy, I take the "trees" trouble to dredge up Herman's exact words from 2003. But Herman has a usually more admirable broad-brush "forest" style, seeing the big picture. So Herman therefore has a tendency to paraphrase from memory rather than engage in pernickety research. On rare occasions Herman's memory fails him, and he fails to correctly capture the essence of another blmler's position (my essence is particularly hard to paraphrase, since I sometimes approach Grattanical nuance). But there is nothing deliberately flagrant in the De Wael forest; it contains no Whomping Willows. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 6 08:15:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:15:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com><001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> Message-ID: <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a question I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and every" rather than "at least one". And I am convinced that this is the intention with Law 70E1, an understanding that I consider consistent with a similar clause in Law 70D1 > "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an interpretation for "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's example, and it works probably 99% of the time. But I think I finally found a counter example in which "each and every": > +=+ 'any' = whichever of a specified class is chosen. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 6 08:59:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:59:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr><000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <4989B673.7080709@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00be01c98830$e95c2e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] more claiming questions >> Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx >> >> xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx >> >> >> same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. >> +=+ Is the successful line of play 'embraced in the original clarification statement'? Is any line of play that does not establish the diamond trick before losing control of other suits 'normal'? Would failure to adopt that line of play be 'irrational'? All questions for the director under Law 70. 'Embrace' = to include or contain. "A claim *should* be accompanied by a clear statement as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed." [** 'failure to do it jeopardizes the infractor's rights'.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 6 08:29:45 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 07:29:45 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <724A2CE0-7FA3-46F0-8CA9-28586E55AF31@starpower.net> Message-ID: <00bd01c98830$e91bf0e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 4:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a question > We don't impose irrational lines of play when we adjudicate doubtful > points not covered by the claim statement, but we accept irrational > lines of play if they are explicitly specified (leaving nothing to > adjudicate). And losing the the king in a twelve-card fit is > irrational, isn't it? WTP? > +=+ One should note that where it now appears in the claims laws 'irrational' is determined by reference to pure logic and reason. It is no longer linked to the class of player in the 2007 laws but has only its dictionary meaning and is the same for all players. Around the year 2001 there was an appeals decision determined at international level that involved a decision in respect of irrationality and the playing of declarer's last outstanding trump. The decision was related to the class of player and might well not have been the same, therefore, under the 2007 laws. I do not recall the precise facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 6 09:25:51 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:25:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi><000d01c9878b$954e2460$15844c59@chello.pl> <498AE6C1.4070206@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <006e01c98834$8621aa80$15844c59@chello.pl> > Actually I wrote only: > > If I understand correctly, you want to by punishment to educate false > claimers and misbehaviourisms. > I think that is brutal and illegal use of Laws. But you are in good > company: Robert Wolff etc. Actually the logic of your words is in short: you advocate education by punishment -> education by punishment is a brutal and illegal use of the laws -> you advocate brutal and illegal use of the laws. Sorry, but even if advocated education by punishment, I would do it by proposing a *change in the laws*, certainly not by breaking the current ones. > I am accusing, at least yet, you from nothing, only pointing, that if Law will be used that way, it is brutal and illegal, up to my mind. The laws have to be used as written. Nothing more. > I am relieved, if I understood your writing wrong. > Using Law as hammer is not proper way educate players. The same as above. If the laws order us to take away 5 tricks, we take them away. If they order to let the result stand, we let it stand. If habitual UI abuser is ruled against, he won't get 7NTxx -10 just because he is a habitual offender. He would get the same adjustment as every other player of his class, even if some of those players infract UI laws for the first time. Even suggesting that I'm advocating something different is silly. The tenor in your words > > "if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some > places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly." > > put me think that you may not give ruling only the case but educating purposes also. > PP's instead are very proper way to educate. What tenor? Sorry, I wrote "unfavourable ruling", not "harsh ruling", not "brutal ruling", not "ruling outside the law". "Unfavourable" means e.g. getting a poor score because of a penalty trick for a revoke. Or poor score because of enforcing a LA after the use of UI. Or poor score after LOOT, penalty card and many others. I simply stated that if a player receives such (completely lawful and not overly harsh) ruling and therefore loses some places in the tournament, he remembers it for a long time and tries to be more attentive and careful to avoid such accidents in the future. That is a side effect, not the reason for ruling against him or for making a harsher ruling. Completely different thing is that I would want to see some laws changed, to more mechanical ones and in some cases to harsher ones. But those are merely my dreams and every time I write about them I use phrases like "in my opinion the laws should be...". > Juuso Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 6 09:45:35 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:45:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] unassuming claim In-Reply-To: <9660AD50-E3A4-4E77-8B5C-B531A3727AD6@starpower.net> References: <49895F71.4020201@ulb.ac.be> <9660AD50-E3A4-4E77-8B5C-B531A3727AD6@starpower.net> Message-ID: <498BF8AF.70109@ulb.ac.be> Eric Landau a ?crit : > >> NB : the actual case is slightly different. My pazrtner said 'Heart 8' >> and wrote down one off, but since he couldn't go down after that, he >> scored his contract. Careful claims are useful, even when wrong. >> > > IMO, he didn't gain any matchpoints, but he certainly avoided a > discussion, a TD call, and possibly an AC hearing. > AG : BTW, we won 13. The contract was 4H, doubled, given on the lead by a bloke who thought my 4D was transfer, not two-suited, and ddin't care to ask. From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 6 09:47:01 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:47:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi><498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> <498ADAF7.4060205@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <007c01c98837$7af93120$15844c59@chello.pl> >> Herman, you are directing for many years, didn't you observe that >> there are patterns of behaviors? Careless and inattentive people make much >> more mistakes and infract the law much more often than solid, attentive >> ones. [Alain] I hope Lapinjatka didn't mean that inattentive people are the same that make faulty claims, fail to alert, transmit UI or infract in other ways that are directly against the game's spirit (as opposed to, say, IBs, which are against the game's mechanics). I might even feel offended. [Maciej] I wrote this. It was a general description of players' behavior. Take note that I wrote "careless and inattentive people make much more *mistakes* and infract the law much more often". I was not writing about cheats, habitual UI abusers or such, but about those who revoke, make IB, CsOOT, LsOOT etc often. Herman stated that in his opinion there are no patterns, that all the players break the procedure more or less equally often. And that is no true, there are the players who have 0-2 accidents a year and those who have 20-25 (or more). That's nothing strange, that depends on players' characters. In real life there are those who forget many things and make many mistakes, and there are human-machines. So it is in bridge. >> I make some silly mistakes, but relatively few. I know some players >> who make even fewer. And I know some who cause troubles constantly. And I >> observed that if they get an unfavourable ruling which costs them some >> places in the tournament, they suddenly start to behave correctly. Strange? >> Not at all. As long as ignoring the correct procedure costs nothing, people >> will ignore it - it will be a waste of time for them, something pointless. [Alain] Please notice that, in order to change this, TFLB provides us with PPs. Not with artificial scores. Feel free to be harsh in assessing PPs to experienced players who don't follow correct procedure. Do not give their opponents an advantage for this reason only. [Maciej] It is really hard for me to understand how is it possible that my statement is so misinterpreted. For the detailed explanation I send you to my response to Juuso. "Unfavourable" doesn't mean "overly harsh" or similar. I wrote about normal, classic, fully lawful rulings which result in a poor score for the offenders. Where did you find "artificial scores" I cannot fathom. >> I know a player who had a bad habit of removing cards from his hand >> constantly (as a defender), putting them back and so on. It was an >> irritating habit, but he ignored any requests to stop. Richard would >> advocate L74, but it's easier to win in lotto then force our TDs to give >> PPs. [Alain] Perhaps that's what's wrong. In my view, calling the detached card a played card was against the laws, no matter how strong the TD wanted to make that habit stop. But telling the player that he'd get a PP whenever he acts in this way, then actually inflicting PPs, would be perfectly legal, as efficient, and fair to the field. [Maciej] Alain, think before you write something. You snipped the important part of my tale and now you are drawing absurd conclusions. I repeat that part: "But once that player *overdid*, he *failed to draw back the card in a right moment*, the opponents called a TD and he *ruled that the card "was in position..."*, so it was played." The TD made a completely correct, lawful ruling. He didn't want to penalise the player. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 6 09:47:22 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:47:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B In-Reply-To: <001501c987c0$67d36e70$377a4b50$@no> References: <6BC8BD5214174606B8A56FF4E0C81F3A@home4paplwv76s> <1LS5Yt-1NKNvc0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><000b01c9814f$046b2520$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c98158$b58b9a20$20a2ce60$@no> <001a01c98175$3e3e0b20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> <001601c98784$8236ebc0$86a4c340$@no> <498AD7D3.8010106@ulb.ac.be> <001501c987c0$67d36e70$377a4b50$@no> Message-ID: <498BF91A.9020704@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > The director must establish to the best of his ability the facts and judge > whether in his opinion the facts corroborates an assertion that the double > was inadvertent. > > Like any other judgment ruling by the director this one can also be > appealed. > > I don't see why this procedure is unfair? > AG : I've no qualms with this procedure. I just meant it was unfair from you to answer only half the question ;-) From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Feb 6 10:59:15 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:59:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] More on moron claims In-Reply-To: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On 05/02/2009, John R. Mayne wrote: > This may have been discussed in one of these threads, but I missed it. Still, I think this is a clarifying example of the claim law problem related to irrational statements. > > The Bridge World had a claim position like this about year ago: > > 987654 > > AQJT32 I've been on the receiving end in a case like this. Declarer at trick two lead a trump, my partner showed out, and declarer finessed into my singleton king. So these things happen. The best part of my story was partner's reaction when I later showed out on the 2nd round of trumps! :o)) > > In TBW's account, declarer tries to concede a trick in the suit after his finesse fetches an outshow from LHO. The appeals committee then gives the trick back to declarer, and is roundly mocked. While there is plenty of good mockery to be had, I'm unconvinced the appeals committee earned it. Don't the laws require this of a good player? > > Law 71 - both the 1997 and 2007 versions - specifically states that a concession shall be cancelled if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. (Normal, as ever, includes careless or inferior, but not irrational.) > > The law does not, anywhere, bind our conceding hero to either an implicit or stated line of play - even had declarer said: "I am finessing the spades unsuccessfully; thus I will lose a trick," that would still be abnormal, and thus the concession should be cancelled. > > It would be a simple fix to add "consistent with the concession (or claim, as the case may be) statement" to avoid this sort of bizarre, anti-bridge ruling. But as bizarre as it was, I think that ruling was the right one. > > Have we beaten this to death, or am I clearly wrong? Shouldn't the claim statement always have some bearing on the result? I've seen the argument here that if the person says it, it must not be irrational for them, but I find that argument rather less than convincing; I've said things and done things that are irrational even for me. > > The claim law also doesn't factor in forgetfulness. Twenty years ago, I made a rather memorable claim that was, due to a slight error about whether an ace had been played, a six-trick compression play. I let the opponents have the tricks - but it was a clearly irrational play for my class of player. The fact that I *did* forget the ace out ought not be factored in under the current laws - and, in fact, the claim makes no proviso for it except for the case of drawing trumps. The claim law, at the very least, should take in the player's perception of the cards played in determining rationality. > > --JRM > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 11:01:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:01:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] The Best of Herman bashing In-Reply-To: References: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498C0A7D.8010806@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > Herman has reached the point at which the merits of moderated lists, > from which assholes and liars may be ejected, become obvious. > I might say the same thing. Who are you to call me an asshole? Out opinions differ, that's all. > On Feb 5, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > >> Take that last time I complained, about Eric. Not only did Eric >> believe >> he was right from the mere fact that he was in a group of 5 against me >> alone, > > What Eric actually wrote was, "Richard, Marvin, Sven, David, Eric and > Herman all have their own idiosyncratic notions about how the claim > laws should ideally be interpreted." That is the exact opposite of > what Herman claims I said. > No Eric, it is not, because after listing those six neames you continued with "but .." and then told us why the five of you were right while I was wrong. Totally invalid logic, IMO. >> but he had the gall to imply that I ruled against what I believed >> the laws were. > > What Eric actually wrote was, "Herman... insists on his entitlement > to rule according to his own... interpretation of the law." That is > the exact opposite of what Herman claims I said. > No Eric, because you wrote the above in a sentence in which you claimed it was OK for you five to rule according to your interpretation of the law, thereby implying that it is wrong for me to rule according to my interpretation of the law. Totally lacking any logic. >> As if my opinion on what the laws are are of no worth >> whatsoever. > > What Eric actually wrote was that his entire argument "has nothing to > do with the merits of individual interpretations of the law". That > is the exact opposite of what Herman claims I said. > But if you don't want to discuss the merits of the individual interpretations, then how can you blame me for ruling according to my interpretation? I urge you Eric, to dig up this post and read it with those points in mind. You criticize me for ruling wrongly, because I base my rulings on my interpretations of the law. You say you don't want to criticize any individual interpretation, and yet you criticize the Director who rules according to what he believes the interpretation to be. That is tantamount to saying: Herman rules wrongly because Herman's interpretation is wrong, and his interpretation is wrong because he is Herman. >> That is Herman-beshing. > > > That is Herman flagrantly and deliberately misrepresenting the > statements of others to lend false credence to his own. > No, that is criticising Herman without any underlying reason. Herman-bashing. > I apologize to anyone other than Herman who may find the above > offensive, but it needed saying. > So you intentionally offend me then? And you think this list needs moderating? > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 11:06:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:06:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law as TD:s hammer In-Reply-To: <498B6002.7010302@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be><49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <002601c9861b$d0314a60$15844c59@chello.pl> <49887E99.7030309@skynet.be> <498AC103.4000903@jldata.fi> <498AD216.5050500@skynet.be> <498ADAF7.4060205@ulb.ac.be> <498B6002.7010302@aol.com> Message-ID: <498C0B94.8020601@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > How do you take away 3 tricks in a 2 card end position? (That was the > original problem.) This disturbed me the first time I read it. It might > be appropriate to pay more attention to the problem as stated before > going off on tangents. JE > This post has nothing to do with the original example. It is a reaction to Juuso saying we need to rule harshly in order to educate. My point was that there is no need to educate against miscounting, the partner will take care of that. And if a player does miscount, there is no need to take away a substantial amount (which I called three tricks) in order to stop him from doing so in future. Miscounting is not against the rules, so the director need not interfere. From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Fri Feb 6 11:06:54 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:06:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498C0BBE.40504@jldata.fi> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Bob Frick's example (modified so East has a legal number of cards): > > >> A >> Q10x >> -- >> x >> >> x x >> AJx -- >> -- x >> x Jxx >> >> -- >> K >> -- >> AKQ10 >> > > [snipped analysis of how Law 70E1 permits declarer to finesse H10] > > >> Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree >> > > Richard Hills: > > Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. I disagree. > > When assessing the validity of a claim, what we assess is what could > have "normally*" occurred at the table if the cards had been played > out one-by-one with no claim. > > If declarer truly thought that his hand was high, and that he was > never returning to dummy, then a Kaplanesque worst of random plays > would be: > > 1. Ace of spades, ten of clubs discard > 2. Ace of clubs > 3. King of clubs, LHO discards her heart x and dummy... > > Declarer says, "Play anything," and dummy flashily discards the > queen of hearts. Or, as declarers often do, declarer could > flashily say, "Discard the queen of hearts - I do not need it." > > Given that declarer thinks dummy's cards are equally worthless, it > cannot be abnormal* for declarer to discard the highest ranking one. > > Cooper Echoes, anyone? :-) > > 4. King of hearts winner, Ace of hearts oops, and the Jack of hearts > can no longer be finessed. Two tricks to the defence, rather than > the mere one trick Bob ruled. > > I thihk this goes too fare. Perhaps discarding h Q is not abnormal, but goes out of wording "any doubtful point agains claimer" in the context. Even, that could, once in 1000(0) could happen. > Look this: KQx AKx QJxx Axx x A109xxx Jxx xxxx AK10xx xx xxxx x Jxx Qxx xx KQJ10x Bidding: 2s (weak)- pass-pass-3nt- all pass Lead: Spade 10, J, x,x Second trick: S x, dia x, S K, S x At this moment North claims: I take my tricks, 10 tricks for me. How would you rule: There is no way to avoid 11 tricks, if N discards last spade to club. Would you give him 11 tricks. No, you would not: only 10 tricks. But claimer still get much more tricks, that he deserved. Why, very long time ago, I played this hand, but I didn't claim. Instead I started to take my tricks, one by one. Unfortunately I started with spade Q, what didn't any more won. And they took 4 spades and 2 dias, 2 off. Would you really rule two off, if one claims in this situation. Or can claimer sometimes have benefit with claim? No, i didn't think, that s Q was high, no way, only big slip of mind, what I knew immediately after playing it. Regards Juuso From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 6 11:08:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:08:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:15:08 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Nothing is often a good thing to say, > and always a clever thing to say". > ~ Will Durant., 1958. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:59 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] a question > > > I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and > every" rather than "at least one". And I am convinced that > this is the intention with Law 70E1, an understanding that I > consider consistent with a similar clause in Law 70D1 >> > "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an > interpretation for "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's > example, and it works probably 99% of the time. But I think > I finally found a counter example in which "each and every": >> > +=+ 'any' = whichever of a specified class is chosen. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Hi Grattan. If you replace "any" with "whichever of a specified class is chosen", you get "...or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on whichever of a specified class is chosen normal* line of play.." I am guessing you didn't mean that. But then I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. I think we all know the intended meaning of this phrase. "any" should be replaced with "that given". Right? Or "any normal" can be replaced with "the normal play under consideration". ("Subsequently" probably needs to be cleaned up too.) From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 11:13:21 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:13:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498B573F.2060904@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> <498B573F.2060904@aol.com> Message-ID: <498C0D41.80605@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > You have no basis to say you thought I had more sense than.... It is an > insult, incidentally, you are not the one to judge how much sense others > have. The correct (and polite) statement would be, "I disagree with > you". You seem to equate disagreement with lack of sense. Jeff, I apologise for the wording, but I stand by my intention. If you were to react on the meaning of my post, I would continue. If you choose to react on my wording, I must assume that my meaning has come through, and you realise that you were wrong in your previous post. > And, incidentally, the word I used was "bullshit". Your email (below) > confirms my usage in my opinion. JE > I am not allowed to use harsh words to you, but you feel free to use bullshit over my contribution? I believe we could all do with a bit more politeness, but also with a bit thicker skin. > Herman De Wael schrieb: >> Jeff, I thought you had more sense than this. >> >> Whatever the word, and as a native English speaker I allow you to choose >> the best one yet, there is a qualitative difference between the trumps >> and the side suits in the situation we are discussing here. >> >> Side suits are Rectangular: There are, in combined opponents' hands, the >> same number or less of them than there higher ones in claimer's hand >> combined with that of claimer's partner. >> >> The Trump suit is Square: There are, in opponent's hands, no more at all. >> >> I know full well that Squares are also Rectangles. >> >> But to say that with one Square and 3 Oblongs (I had to look that word >> up), there is no difference between the four suits because they are all >> Rectangles, is, quite basically, wrong. >> I note, Jeff, that you did not interject anything here. Does that mean that you agree? Or that you think it's the word you used higher up? In that last case, Jeff, there is really nothing further to say. To lose the sight of logic so completely is ... (nothing comes to mind that might be considered even slightly polite) ... let's say I believe you are mistaken. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 11:18:19 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:18:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498C0E6B.8030509@skynet.be> Well done, Richard, except for one thing: Just as it is irrational to lead trumps first, I also believe it is irrational to discard suits top-down. But that's just the same discussion as the one we recently had. Herman. richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Bob Frick's example (modified so East has a legal number of cards): > >> A >> Q10x >> -- >> x >> >> x x >> AJx -- >> -- x >> x Jxx >> >> -- >> K >> -- >> AKQ10 > > [snipped analysis of how Law 70E1 permits declarer to finesse H10] > >> Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree > > Richard Hills: > > Never play leapfrog with a unicorn. I disagree. > > When assessing the validity of a claim, what we assess is what could > have "normally*" occurred at the table if the cards had been played > out one-by-one with no claim. > > If declarer truly thought that his hand was high, and that he was > never returning to dummy, then a Kaplanesque worst of random plays > would be: > > 1. Ace of spades, ten of clubs discard > 2. Ace of clubs > 3. King of clubs, LHO discards her heart x and dummy... > > Declarer says, "Play anything," and dummy flashily discards the > queen of hearts. Or, as declarers often do, declarer could > flashily say, "Discard the queen of hearts - I do not need it." > > Given that declarer thinks dummy's cards are equally worthless, it > cannot be abnormal* for declarer to discard the highest ranking one. > > Cooper Echoes, anyone? :-) > > 4. King of hearts winner, Ace of hearts oops, and the Jack of hearts > can no longer be finessed. Two tricks to the defence, rather than > the mere one trick Bob ruled. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 11:22:57 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:22:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> Message-ID: <498C0F81.7070401@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Did anyone else notice that Herman didn't even mention the original case > in his response to Robert? I wonder why. JE > Maybe because Robert did not mention any of the (now several) original cases in his post. I commented on the wording, not on the case. Herman. > Robert Park schrieb: >> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>
Robert >>> Park wrote: >>>> ; >>>> : >>>> And to Herman: I still don't understand why you would award the best >>>> of all possible outcomes to someone who makes a defective claim. >>>> >>>> --Bob Park >>>> >>> Put it like this, I don't understand either. >>> But then there are a number of things wrong in your sentence. >>> 1) "the best of all possible outcomes"? No, never! >>> This is what is wrong with blml. We find an interesting case, and we >>> discuss it endlessly. And so we think this is the only case. We ignore >>> all those others where we just apply the laws. >>> Of course I don't give the best of all possible outcomes. In the >>> Tenerife example, the best possible outcome if 4 tricks to declarer >>> (with defender unblocking his highest trump). And the Tenerife example >>> would not have been there if there were some other way for defender to >>> get a second trick. So of course I don't give the best of all possible >>> outcomes. >>> But it's true, I don't award the worst of all outcomes. Not because I >>> don't want to. But because I consider it to be not a possible outcome. >>> So if Robert wants to rephrase his question: why don't you consider >>> this outcome not possible - then I will answer it - and I think I have. >>> >>> 2) a defective claim. >>> These are not defective claims - well, not any more so than any other. >>> What I mean is this: any claim that we are called upon is a defective >>> claim. >>> >>> So if Robert wishes to know how I deal with the 300 or so claim >>> rulings I deal with every year, he can ask. But the question as put >>> here is senseless. >>> >>> Herman. >>> >>> >>> >>>
>> "Senseless? Does this come from the from the bashing engine we have been >> hearing about? >> >> The original situation was explained thus: >> >> "There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following >> case. Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and >> a high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. " >> >> Your ruling, Herman, (as I recall it) was that declarer should be >> awarded one trick...the best of all possible outcomes for him. >> >> I fail to see how you "know" (or even think it highly probable) that he >> would lead his high heart first. Absent that presumption, I fail to see >> how you can justify awarding declarer "the best of all possible outcomes." >> >> --Bob Park >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 henk at ripe.net Fri Feb 6 11:23:33 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:23:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Bashing people In-Reply-To: <498C0A7D.8010806@skynet.be> References: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> <498C0A7D.8010806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498C0FA5.8060408@ripe.net> Hi all, Speaking as moderator of the list... I usually don't interfere with the discussion on the list. However, with some recent postings that included text like: >> XX has reached the point at which the merits of moderated lists, >> from which assholes and liars may be ejected, become obvious. > I might say the same thing. Who are you to call me an asshole? Our > opinions differ, that's all. I think we have gone past discussing bridge laws (for which the list is intended) and into the area of personal attacks (for which the list is NOT intended). I tried to find out where things went wrong and who was responsible, but failed. This was a continuous process going more and more in the wrong direction. So, I suggest the following: = We stop discussing the specific rulings that led to this point. = We all accept that we have our differences of opinion. = Everybody who feels like calling somebody else an asshole, liar, or whatever, takes a 1 week cool down period and DOES NOT POST during this week. 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 6 11:33:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:33:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <00be01c98830$e95c2e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be> <4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr> <000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <4989B673.7080709@skynet.be> <00be01c98830$e95c2e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:59:38 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Nothing is often a good thing to say, > and always a clever thing to say". > ~ Will Durant., 1958. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 3:38 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] more claiming questions > > >>> Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx >>> >>> xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx >>> >>> >>> same opening lead, declarer claims for 10 tricks. >>> Great questions. > +=+ Is the successful line of play 'embraced in the original > clarification statement'? As you note below, these are director decisions. But I think a reasonable answer is yes. The claim is for 10 tricks, and there is only one reasonable play for that. It seemed critical to the example that the play for the tenth trick was unambiguous. > Is any line of play that does not > establish the diamond trick before losing control of other > suits 'normal'? If you define "normal" in terms of the hand and the player's ability, then you have the problem that you get to the same answer for the 9-trick claim and the 10-trick claim. If you define normal in terms of the declarer's awareness of the hand and implied line of play, you would not be asking this question this way. I think. > Would failure to adopt that line of play be > 'irrational'? Same answer. > All questions for the director under Law 70. > 'Embrace' = to include or contain. > "A claim *should* be accompanied by a clear statement > as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of > play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win > the tricks claimed." [** 'failure to do it jeopardizes the > infractor's rights'.] As Eric notes, some claims are just "I have the rest". We then presume unblocking, ruffing losers, etc. I am not sure the claimer has any rights that are lost by an unclear claim. Tricks maybe, but rights? The claimer has a right to change the claim to a higher number, but that right is not lost by an unclear claim. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 6 11:42:12 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:42:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Law 25A or 36B In-Reply-To: <498BF91A.9020704@ulb.ac.be> References: <6BC8BD5214174606B8A56FF4E0C81F3A@home4paplwv76s> <1LS5Yt-1NKNvc0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><000b01c9814f$046b2520$15844c59@chello.pl> <000301c98158$b58b9a20$20a2ce60$@no> <001a01c98175$3e3e0b20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49819599.4080104@ulb.ac.be> <498AB941.5050407@jldata.fi> <001601c98784$8236ebc0$86a4c340$@no> <498AD7D3.8010106@ulb.ac.be> <001501c987c0$67d36e70$377a4b50$@no> <498BF91A.9020704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c98847$9215fd60$b641f820$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > The director must establish to the best of his ability the facts and judge > > whether in his opinion the facts corroborates an assertion that the double > > was inadvertent. > > > > Like any other judgment ruling by the director this one can also be > > appealed. > > > > I don't see why this procedure is unfair? > > > AG : I've no qualms with this procedure. I just meant it was unfair from > you to answer only half the question ;-) I am sorry I forgot to include L25B. That was partly because L25B2 says that the auction continues without explicitly mentioning that when the first call was illegal the auction does not actually continue (directly) but the illegal (first) call is handled under the applicable law. L25B2: "Except as in 1 a substitution not permitted by A is cancelled. The original call stands and the auction continues." Regards Sven From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Feb 6 11:54:02 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:54:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! (was Claim law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <009901c98849$8d8d7d20$2401a8c0@p41600> As a young and inexperienced player, I asked the td if I might appeal his ruling please. He replied that there was no point in so doing, as they were the chairman and his wife, and there was no way that I'd win. So no I couldn't. I asked if I might see the law book. He replied of course not, that is only for directors. That is when I first took an interest in directing. lnb **************************************** Agamemnon : Ancient Mycenaean cooking device. **************************************** > >In *practice*, my impression is that directors and appeals > >committees do rule in favour of sufficiently popular and expert > >declarers. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 6 12:44:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:44:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com><001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no><00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a question > On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:15:08 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Nothing is often a good thing to say, >> and always a clever thing to say". >> ~ Will Durant., 1958. >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:59 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >> >> >> I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and >> every" rather than "at least one". And I am convinced that >> this is the intention with Law 70E1, an understanding that I >> consider consistent with a similar clause in Law 70D1 >>> >> "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an >> interpretation for "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's >> example, and it works probably 99% of the time. But I think >> I finally found a counter example in which "each and every": >>> >> +=+ 'any' = whichever of a specified class is chosen. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Hi Grattan. If you replace "any" with "whichever of a specified class is > chosen", you get > > "...or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on whichever of a > specified class is chosen normal* line of play.." > > I am guessing you didn't mean that. But then I am not sure what you are > trying to accomplish. I think we all know the intended meaning of this > phrase. "any" should be replaced with "that given". Right? Or "any normal" > can be replaced with "the normal play under consideration". > > ("Subsequently" probably needs to be cleaned up too.) > +=+ The correct interpolation reads: "or would subsequently fail to follow suit whichever normal line of play is chosen". The specified class is 'normal lines of play'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 6 13:02:16 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:02:16 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias Message-ID: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net> [J.R.R. Tolkien, "The Voice of Saruman"] "The treacherous are ever distrustful," answered Gandalf wearily. [Richard Hills counter-asserts] "The paranoid bunnies are ever distrustful," answers Richard wearily. (1) My impression is that a very small number of directors (whose licenses to direct should be revoked) and a very small number of appeals committee members (who should never have been invited to serve) do partisanly rule in favour of the popular declarers and against the unpopular declarers. But for a blmler to use "directors" and "appeals committees" without any qualification gives me the "impression" that the blmler's intent was to smear _most_ directors and to smear _most_ appeals committees. (2) A universal iron rule (no, not the De :-) Wael rule) is that all bridge players think that they play better than they do. There is an old joke about Omar Sharif being called upon to testify in a court case. Lawyer: "Mr Sharif, please describe your qualifications." Omar: "I am a mediocre movie star and the best bridge player in the world." Afterwards... Friend: "Omar, why did you describe yourself as the best bridge in the world?" Omar: "What could I do? I was under oath to tell the truth." So all above-average bunnies think that they are experts. A very small number of these bunnies, frustrated at being "inexplicably" outplayed by real expert opponents, become paranoid and assume that these expert opponents gain unfair advantage (such as by the real experts capitalising on their friendship with directors). [Richard Hills, 7th July 2004] Many years ago, top Aussie player Annie Grenside was playing in the Australian Women's Teams Championship. After an >>>infraction occurred at the table, she raised her hand and called, "Director, darling!" It so happened that Australia's CTD at that time was Annie's then husband, Richard Grenside. :-) Of course, Richard Grenside gave a professional ruling, despite his then wife being an interested party. [John (MadDog) Probst] Yeah, can you imagine the effect of "DA-----DDY!" across a 100-table Swiss? The whole friggin room erupts. He usually takes my rulings to appeal on various grounds: 1) He hates me 2) He's clueless 3) He always rules against me. OMG, I hate children, they should be stuck in a barrel and fedthrough the bung-hole from birth. At about age 17 I recommend driving in the cork. John [Nigel] Some directors are human beings, with similar foibles to ordinary players, including prejudice and bias. Hence, for example, I think a director should try to recuse himself when a ruling involves close relatives, team-mates, and sworn enemies. Directors bias in favour of experts is built into the law. Examples: - When judging hypothetical lines of play, the law usually takes into account the calibre of the law-breaker. - The law denies redress to the victim of a deliberate blatant and severely damaging infraction, if the director judges the victim's subsequent action to be egregious. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 6 13:41:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 07:41:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 06:44:39 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "A book may be amusing with numerous > errors, or it may be very dull without a > single absurdity." > [Oliver Goldsmith] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 10:08 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] a question > > >> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:15:08 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "Nothing is often a good thing to say, >>> and always a clever thing to say". >>> ~ Will Durant., 1958. >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 10:59 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >>> >>> >>> I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and >>> every" rather than "at least one". And I am convinced that >>> this is the intention with Law 70E1, an understanding that I >>> consider consistent with a similar clause in Law 70D1 >>>> >>> "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an >>> interpretation for "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's >>> example, and it works probably 99% of the time. But I think >>> I finally found a counter example in which "each and every": >>>> >>> +=+ 'any' = whichever of a specified class is chosen. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> Hi Grattan. If you replace "any" with "whichever of a specified class is >> chosen", you get >> >> "...or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on whichever of a >> specified class is chosen normal* line of play.." >> >> I am guessing you didn't mean that. But then I am not sure what you are >> trying to accomplish. I think we all know the intended meaning of this >> phrase. "any" should be replaced with "that given". Right? Or "any >> normal" >> can be replaced with "the normal play under consideration". >> >> ("Subsequently" probably needs to be cleaned up too.) >> > +=+ The correct interpolation reads: "or would subsequently fail to > follow suit whichever normal line of play is chosen". The specified > class is 'normal lines of play'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hi Grattan. I don't think that is what the authors intended (or how it would be intrepreted). I have an example, elsewhere, where in one of the normal lines of play, RHO does not fail to follow suit in hearts, because hearts are never played. Then there is another normal line of play where hearts are played, RHO shows out. Do we now deny declarer the finesse just because RHO did not show out in a different line of play? I don't think so. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 6 14:25:10 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:25:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c9885e$55c0c590$014250b0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ............. > I have an example, elsewhere, where in one of the normal lines of play, > RHO does not fail to follow suit in hearts, because hearts are never > played. Then there is another normal line of play where hearts are played, > RHO shows out. Do we now deny declarer the finesse just because RHO did > not show out in a different line of play? I don't think so. I consider that part of the laws absolutely unambiguous and clear: In your example the Director shall deny declarer the successful finesse if the actual situation is that once RHO has shown out then there is no longer any finesse and if the finesse is to be taken then RHO will not have shown out before the moment declarer must choose between finesse or drop. If, in the selected (among alternatives) line of play, at the moment declarer must make a choice on the location of a particular card (or cards) one opponent has ALREADY shown out, then, and only then, is declarer allowed to "know" that the crucial card(s) is/are held by the other opponent. This is also relevant to the situation of finesse for the Queen possible both ways when a top honor played first will reveal which way the finesse must be taken if at all needed. Declarer is now doomed to guess the "wrong" top honor to be played first unless he already "knows" for certainty which opponent holds the Queen. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 6 14:53:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:53:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs In-Reply-To: <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> Message-ID: <0E345458-8105-4B0F-A051-05E059BCBA30@starpower.net> On Feb 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Did anyone else notice that Herman didn't even mention the original > case > in his response to Robert? I wonder why. Did anyone else notice that when I challenged Herman to show how his interpretation would apply to a specific example I set, he responded by changing the (clearly identified) trump suit, tunring the example ridiculous, then proceeded to ridicule it? I wonder why. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 6 15:08:08 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:08:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000101c9885e$55c0c590$014250b0$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000101c9885e$55c0c590$014250b0$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:25:10 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ............. >> I have an example, elsewhere, where in one of the normal lines of play, >> RHO does not fail to follow suit in hearts, because hearts are never >> played. Then there is another normal line of play where hearts are >> played, >> RHO shows out. Do we now deny declarer the finesse just because RHO did >> not show out in a different line of play? I don't think so. > > I consider that part of the laws absolutely unambiguous and clear: > > In your example the Director shall deny declarer the successful finesse > if > the actual situation is that once RHO has shown out then there is no > longer > any finesse and if the finesse is to be taken then RHO will not have > shown > out before the moment declarer must choose between finesse or drop. > > If, in the selected (among alternatives) line of play, at the moment > declarer must make a choice on the location of a particular card (or > cards) > one opponent has ALREADY shown out, then, and only then, is declarer > allowed > to "know" that the crucial card(s) is/are held by the other opponent. > > This is also relevant to the situation of finesse for the Queen possible > both ways when a top honor played first will reveal which way the finesse > must be taken if at all needed. Declarer is now doomed to guess the > "wrong" > top honor to be played first unless he already "knows" for certainty > which > opponent holds the Queen. > > Sven Thanks. I was pretty sure I was right, and no one complained when I paraphrased the law that way or disagreed with allowing the finesse in my example. And everyone said the law was obvious. But it is still nice to get direct support. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Feb 6 15:13:55 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 14:13:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000101c9885e$55c0c590$014250b0$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000101c9885e$55c0c590$014250b0$@no> Message-ID: <000c01c98865$27aaa8e0$76fffaa0$@com> [SP] I consider that part of the laws absolutely unambiguous and clear: If, in the selected (among alternatives) line of play, at the moment declarer must make a choice on the location of a particular card (or cards) one opponent has ALREADY shown out, then, and only then, is declarer allowed to "know" that the crucial card(s) is/are held by the other opponent. [DALB] There may be some confusion here. Let us amend the example thus: North (dummy) None Q102 None 2 West East None None AJ98 None None AKQJ None None South None K None 543 South is not absolutely sure whether his clubs are good (in fact, they are) but he "knows" that the king of hearts is good (in fact, it is not). He claims optimistically, saying that he will play a heart to the king and cash the clubs. West objects, saying that he will win the king of hearts with the ace. May declarer be presumed to finesse on the heart return, even though East has not shown out of hearts at the moment declarer claims? David Burn London, England From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 6 15:18:57 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:18:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias In-Reply-To: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net> References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <498C46D1.4050802@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > > Many years ago, top Aussie player Annie Grenside was playing in the > Australian Women's Teams Championship. After an >>>infraction occurred > at the table, she raised her hand and called, "Director, darling!" It so > happened that Australia's CTD at that time was Annie's then husband, > Richard Grenside. :-) > > Of course, Richard Grenside gave a professional ruling, despite his then wife being an interested party. > > Perhaps it's more human that a Belgian expert and occasional TD recently gave a ruling that ridiculed his mother-in-law. Or perhaps she had already made herself ridicule. Removing all expletives and swearwords, the discussion boils down to : - You Belgians have a strange way to overvalue hands. - Why didn't you try and prove it and what on Earth am I doing at this table ? But apart from that, I, too, think that rulings are often too favorable to good -or established- players, but not because of (conscious or not) TD bias. The source is mainly the fact that better players often know better how to present their case (or how to lie in a way that suits their case). And several other elements can cause good-player bias. One I very much dislike is the 'failure to play bridge' provision. For some reason, this isn't calibrated on the player's level, so that some players will always be ruled against, as they always fail to play reasonable bridge. If players are judged on their merits when it helps experts ('irrational for that level of player'), they also should be when it doesn't ('the ensuing error was egregious for that level of player'). Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 6 15:25:23 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:25:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] More on moron claims In-Reply-To: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <21783792.1233869842782.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2009, at 4:37 PM, John R. Mayne wrote: > This may have been discussed in one of these threads, but I missed > it. Still, I think this is a clarifying example of the claim law > problem related to irrational statements. > > The Bridge World had a claim position like this about year ago: > > 987654 > > AQJT32 > > In TBW's account, declarer tries to concede a trick in the suit > after his finesse fetches an outshow from LHO. The appeals > committee then gives the trick back to declarer, and is roundly > mocked. While there is plenty of good mockery to be had, I'm > unconvinced the appeals committee earned it. Don't the laws require > this of a good player? > > Law 71 - both the 1997 and 2007 versions - specifically states that > a concession shall be cancelled if a player has conceded a trick > that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. > (Normal, as ever, includes careless or inferior, but not irrational.) While I sincerely wish that John's parenthetical were true, it is hard to justify. It was explicit in the 1997 laws, but the WBFLC went out of their way to write a new footnote, from which the language excluding irrational plays from consideration was dropped. Now I'm pretty well convinced that they didn't really intend to have us impose irrational plays on claimers for minor procedural errors in stating their claim, but that's what the law says (it is indisputable that irrational plays are inherently careless or inferior), and it will require some formal action by the WBF to restore the law to (pardon the term) rationality. > The law does not, anywhere, bind our conceding hero to either an > implicit or stated line of play - even had declarer said: "I am > finessing the spades unsuccessfully; thus I will lose a trick," > that would still be abnormal, and thus the concession should be > cancelled. > > It would be a simple fix to add "consistent with the concession (or > claim, as the case may be) statement" to avoid this sort of > bizarre, anti-bridge ruling. But as bizarre as it was, I think that > ruling was the right one. > > Have we beaten this to death, or am I clearly wrong? Shouldn't the > claim statement always have some bearing on the result? I've seen > the argument here that if the person says it, it must not be > irrational for them, but I find that argument rather less than > convincing; I've said things and done things that are irrational > even for me. The claim statement not only has some bearing; it is, in effect, defintive. The considerations of normality, rationality and the like in L70 apply when the TD rules on a "*contested* [emphasis mine] claim or concession", exercising his obligation to "resolve doubtful points". A declarer who claims six tricks from the twelve-card fit missing the king without saying how he will play the suit, the play becomes a "doubtful point" to be resolved, and he we give him six tricks because it would not be "normal" not to play the ace. But a declarer who states explcitly that he will lose a trick to the offside singleton king will lose it; there is no "doubtful point" to be either "contested" or adjudicated. > The claim law also doesn't factor in forgetfulness. Twenty years > ago, I made a rather memorable claim that was, due to a slight > error about whether an ace had been played, a six-trick compression > play. I let the opponents have the tricks - but it was a clearly > irrational play for my class of player. The fact that I *did* > forget the ace out ought not be factored in under the current laws > - and, in fact, the claim makes no proviso for it except for the > case of drawing trumps. The claim law, at the very least, should > take in the player's perception of the cards played in determining > rationality. Twenty years ago, the concept of rationality (viz. the word "irrational") appeared in L70. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 6 16:13:03 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 10:13:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> Message-ID: On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:49:48 -0500, Sven Pran > wrote: > >> On Behalf Of Marvin L French > >>> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite >>> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal >>> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good >>> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But >>> there was no "original clarification statement." >> >> Here, although you most likely are more familiar with the English >> (excuse >> me: American) language than I am I have a distinct impression that >> you >> are >> reading the laws like a certain figure is said to read the Holy >> Bible. >> >> I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and every" >> rather >> than "at least one". And I am convinced that this is the intention >> with >> Law >> 70E1, an understanding that I consider consistent with a similar >> clause >> in >> Law 70D1 > > "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an > interpretation for > "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's example, and it works > probably 99% > of the time. But I think I finally found a counter example in which > "each > and every": > > Declarer, who is in dummy, claims the rest, saying that he will > cash the > ace of spades and lead a club to his hand, and that his hand is > already > high. > > A > Q10x > -- > x > > x x > AJx -- > -- xx > x xxx > > -- > K > -- > AKQ10 > > Because declarer thinks all the cards in his hand are high, it is > reasonable that he pitch the 10 of clubs on the high spade. Then > after to > crossing to hand in clubs, it is reasonable to play the king of hearts > first. LHO wins, with RHO showing out. I think L7E1 was intended to > allow > declarer to now take the heart finesse. > > However, RHO would not show out in hearts in each and every normal > line of > play. Pitching the K of hearts on the ace of spades is normal, and > indeed > what a director would probably enforce if the K of hearts was high > and the > 10 of clubs would not be good at the end. In that line of play, RHO > never > shows out in hearts. > > Again, to me the finesse should be allowed in a given line of play > if a > player has showed out IN THAT line of play. > > Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree Neither can I. Because, IMO, the language is perfectly clear; Marvin and Bob are indulging in irrelevant semantic nitpicking. We're not discussing the philology of the word "any" on alt.usage.english; we're discussing contested claims on BLML. The requirements of the law are straightforward. In resolving doubtful points in a contested claim we examine all lines of play that (a) are consistent with the uncontested elements of the claim statement (the "non-doubtful points"), and (b) meet some threshhold of normality, rationality, obviousness, or the like. We have no idea where that line lies, but seem to agree almost unanimously that it must be there somewhere. We do not consider "irrational" (for lack of a better word) plays that fall below the line. These include throwing kings under aces, running AKQJ1092 by starting with the deuce, and declining to take proven finesses through a hand whose partner has shown out of the suit. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 6 16:27:39 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:27:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Nigel] > Some directors are human beings, with similar foibles to ordinary players, including prejudice and bias. Hence, for example, I think a director should try to recuse himself when a ruling involves close relatives, team-mates, and sworn enemies. True. And that's what usually happens. If there is any choice of TDs at the moment, I'm sure that a relative/enemy/team-mate will recuse himself. If ACs are formed and the player has valid objections to the impartiality of any hypothetical member, I'm sure that the director in charge will make a change. In USA there is a policy that the hypothetical AC member should recuse himself and the Team Leader/Appeals Administrator may always form the panel to avoid any accusations of bias. I think that Richard's examples regarded the situations in which there is only one TD available. What do you propose instead of him making a ruling? No ruling? And remeber that mechanical rulings may be easily checked in the lawbook. If an experienced TD gives am unlawful ruling against the player which is then recognized as his personal enemy, I'm sure it will be the last ruling of that TD in his life And judgement rulings are nearly always consulted, so it is not only the "table TD" who makes a decision. And then you have a right to appeal a ruling. And then you have a right to appeal to your National Authority. If you are able to show that the ruling was unlawful and that there was bias, I'm sure you will win and those who made that ruling will have hard times. Or do you want to suggest that TD and AC *and* NA are your enemies? Then you are unlucky, you may have to try to seek indemnity in a Sports Tribunal or such. Despite all the safeguards, despite all the goodwill and sensible procedures, there still will be a non-zero chance of the gross failure in justice. That's what happens in real life too. > Directors bias in favour of experts is built into the law. Moonshine. The only bias that I can see is in favour of the players who know the laws. Like in real life, isn't it? Both experts and bunnies sometimes do get more beneficial rulings depending on their status. Examples: > - When judging hypothetical lines of play, the law usually takes into account the calibre of the law-breaker. If there is a need to judge hypothetical probable outcome, what is an alternative? I'm not a supporter of "equity" trend, but as long as it is prevalent in the laws, there is no other option. > - The law denies redress to the victim of a deliberate blatant and severely damaging infraction, if the director judges the victim's subsequent action to be egregious. And justly so. The fact that someone infracted the law doesn't give a right to the NOS to make any mistakes they wish to do. If they revoke one time in each two tricks or make other idiotic plays, their damage is *self-inflicted*, not caused by an infraction. To give them redress would be equal with stopping the play after an infraction, because no play may have any impact on the outcome. That is plainly silly, sometimes the NOS is put in a *better* position thanks to an infraction and therefore they should still concetrate and try to play to their best. Nobody will hang them for simple mistakes. And now some counter-examples: - when judging whether to give PPs or not the TD takes a player's status into consideration - experts will get them more often, the same goes for AMWMs or other "deposit" decisions - beginners have more freedom in hesitating (their variations in tempo often do not transmit any specific information), LA decisions are sometimes in their favor, claim decisions too (they are not deemed to take a complex squeeze line if that is less favourable) Finally, take this example showing that class of player has to count: - the opponents abuse UI and the result is later adjusted to another contract played by NOS. The expert tells the TD that he will play so and so, drawing inferences from the opponents' bidding and finding a fine throw-in/squeeze. The TD judges it probable and awards such result (or gives it a significant weight). Bunny in the same situations says nothing, he seems to be satisfied with adjusted result following normal, simple play. Then he gets to know from his expert friend that there is a fine, complex play to reach a better score. Now he appeals claiming that he would find that line. Do you really think that the AC should rule in his favor? Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 6 16:55:30 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:55:30 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias In-Reply-To: <004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net> <004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498C5D72.7020304@talktalk.net> [Bystry] True. And that's what usually happens. If there is any choice of TDs at the moment, I'm sure that a relative/enemy/team-mate will recuse himself. If ACs are formed and the player has valid objections to the impartiality of any hypothetical member, I'm sure that the director in charge will make a change. In USA there is a policy that the hypothetical AC member should recuse himself and the Team Leader/Appeals Administrator may always form the panel to avoid any accusations of bias. I think that Richard's examples regarded the situations in which there is only one TD available. What do you propose instead of him making a ruling? No ruling? And remeber that mechanical rulings may be easily checked in the lawbook. If an experienced TD gives am unlawful ruling against the player which is then recognized as his personal enemy, I'm sure it will be the last ruling of that TD in his life And judgement rulings are nearly always consulted, so it is not only the "table TD" who makes a decision. And then you have a right to appeal a ruling. And then you have a right to appeal to your National Authority. If you are able to show that the ruling was unlawful and that there was bias, I'm sure you will win and those who made that ruling will have hard times. Or do you want to suggest that TD and AC *and* NA are your enemies? Then you are unlucky, you may have to try to seek indemnity in a Sports Tribunal or such. Despite all the safeguards, despite all the goodwill and sensible procedures, there still will be a non-zero chance of the gross failure in justice. That's what happens in real life too. [Nigel] Bystry would be right if only one person were available who could make a ruling. Richard's examples were a 100 table Swiss and the Autralian Womens' Teams Championship. In such cases, I reckon there would be more than one director. Even in a club event there is usually somebody else whom the director can delegate to make a ruling. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 6 17:00:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:00:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:13:03 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:49:48 -0500, Sven Pran >> wrote: >> >>> On Behalf Of Marvin L French >> >>>> And L70E still permits a player who claims with KJ10xx opposite >>>> Axxxx to get five tricks with any 3-0 split. One of two normal >>>> lines of play will get it right, and the law says the claim is good >>>> if someone would show out on *any* normal line of play. L70D1? But >>>> there was no "original clarification statement." >>> >>> Here, although you most likely are more familiar with the English >>> (excuse >>> me: American) language than I am I have a distinct impression that >>> you >>> are >>> reading the laws like a certain figure is said to read the Holy >>> Bible. >>> >>> I understand "any" in this context to really mean "each and every" >>> rather >>> than "at least one". And I am convinced that this is the intention >>> with >>> Law >>> 70E1, an understanding that I consider consistent with a similar >>> clause >>> in >>> Law 70D1 >> >> "each and every" is illogical, as I have argued. (As an >> interpretation for >> "any" in L70D1. It gets rid of Marvin's example, and it works >> probably 99% >> of the time. But I think I finally found a counter example in which >> "each >> and every": >> >> Declarer, who is in dummy, claims the rest, saying that he will >> cash the >> ace of spades and lead a club to his hand, and that his hand is >> already >> high. >> >> A >> Q10x >> -- >> x >> >> x x >> AJx -- >> -- xx >> x xxx >> >> -- >> K >> -- >> AKQ10 >> >> Because declarer thinks all the cards in his hand are high, it is >> reasonable that he pitch the 10 of clubs on the high spade. Then >> after to >> crossing to hand in clubs, it is reasonable to play the king of hearts >> first. LHO wins, with RHO showing out. I think L7E1 was intended to >> allow >> declarer to now take the heart finesse. >> >> However, RHO would not show out in hearts in each and every normal >> line of >> play. Pitching the K of hearts on the ace of spades is normal, and >> indeed >> what a director would probably enforce if the K of hearts was high >> and the >> 10 of clubs would not be good at the end. In that line of play, RHO >> never >> shows out in hearts. >> >> Again, to me the finesse should be allowed in a given line of play >> if a >> player has showed out IN THAT line of play. >> >> Bob, who cannot believe that any person reading this would disagree > > Neither can I. Because, IMO, the language is perfectly clear; Marvin > and Bob are indulging in irrelevant semantic nitpicking. We're not > discussing the philology of the word "any" on alt.usage.english; > we're discussing contested claims on BLML. > > The requirements of the law are straightforward. In resolving > doubtful points in a contested claim we examine all lines of play > that (a) are consistent with the uncontested elements of the claim > statement (the "non-doubtful points"), and (b) meet some threshhold > of normality, rationality, obviousness, or the like. We have no idea > where that line lies, but seem to agree almost unanimously that it > must be there somewhere. We do not consider "irrational" (for lack > of a better word) plays that fall below the line. These include > throwing kings under aces, running AKQJ1092 by starting with the > deuce, and declining to take proven finesses through a hand whose > partner has shown out of the suit. WTP? One problem is that your last paragraph is off-topic. The topic is a particular phrase in L70E1: "...or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play..." Marvin pointed out that the straightforward reading of L70E1 is not correct -- the word "any" doesn't work. I thought that was a worthwhile contribution and would not have denigrated it. He was essentially pointing out that the law had a nit. I have shown that replacing "any" with "every" does not work. There is no problem changing that phrase to something everyone agrees is how directors should rule. The problem is that these "paraphrases" don't correspond well to the actual language in L70E1. There is, I think, an effort to find a phrasing of L70E1 that looks like the current version as much as possible but has the correct meaning. If you are not interested in the discussion, maybe you shouldn't participate. Bob From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 6 17:07:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:07:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2009, at 2:58 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau asserted: > > [big snip] > >> That is Herman flagrantly and deliberately misrepresenting the >> statements of others to lend false credence to his own. >> >> I apologize to anyone other than Herman who may find the above >> offensive, but it needed saying. > > Richard Hills, pedantic nerd with Asperger's Syndrome quibbles: > > I am not offended, merely believe Eric's statement is not quite > accurate. > > As an Aspy, I take the "trees" trouble to dredge up Herman's > exact words from 2003. But Herman has a usually more admirable > broad-brush "forest" style, seeing the big picture. So Herman > therefore has a tendency to paraphrase from memory rather than > engage in pernickety research. > > On rare occasions Herman's memory fails him, and he fails to > correctly capture the essence of another blmler's position (my > essence is particularly hard to paraphrase, since I sometimes > approach Grattanical nuance). > > But there is nothing deliberately flagrant in the De Wael > forest; it contains no Whomping Willows. Herman gives flagrant offense not merely because he "fails to correctly capture the essence of another BLMLer's position", but because, when he tires of endlessly repeating the same arguments and collecting the same refutations, he falls back on characterizing the "essence of another BLMLer's position" as an intellectually dishonest veiled ad hominem attack. Just in the past few days... On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > So what Eric is saying is that Herman is wrong because he disagrees > with > Eric. On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:49 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > We are right, and Herman is Herman, so Herman is wrong. On Feb 3, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > I used to think > that I was talking to a bunch of reasonable people who might change > their views once the errors of their pre-held positions was > explained to > them. I am beginning to think I was wrong in that. I am talking to a > group of stubborn individuals. On Feb 3, 2009, at 9:45 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > This is the same thing that is always wrong on blml. One claim case is > posted per year, and I rule one way, you the other. And when you stop > finding arguments against my ruling, you start crying "Herman always > rules in favour of the claimer". On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Bystry wrote: > >> Your opinion is till now against all the other contributors' >> opinions. > > Yeah. So you're all wrong. Impossible? Or just a proof that blml is a > load of nincompoops? On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Herman De Wael wrote: > And why is my interpretation wrong? Because it differs from yours? > Or just because you call it peculiar.... I am offended.... I > demand an apology. On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:28 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > Anyway, if the only reason you feel I am wrong is because I am at a > minority, that argument is totally invalid, and I categorise it as > Herman-bashing. On Feb 5, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > When I refer to Herman-bashing, it is not people calling Herman Stupid > (I don't really mind that), it is people calling some of my arguments > stupid _because they come from Herman_. And that is not acceptable. I do believe I detect a pattern here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 17:46:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:46:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs In-Reply-To: <0E345458-8105-4B0F-A051-05E059BCBA30@starpower.net> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> <0E345458-8105-4B0F-A051-05E059BCBA30@starpower.net> Message-ID: <498C697D.6060804@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> Did anyone else notice that Herman didn't even mention the original >> case >> in his response to Robert? I wonder why. > > Did anyone else notice that when I challenged Herman to show how his > interpretation would apply to a specific example I set, he responded > by changing the (clearly identified) trump suit, tunring the example > ridiculous, then proceeded to ridicule it? I wonder why. > I also wonder why. I don't remember doing this. I'll try to find the specific example you put. Your post of 3feb, at 22:51. the example I offered previously, A/A/A/2, with spades trump, the C2 high, and the opposite holding irrelevant, and has explained how it comports with his view of the law. I ridiculed the example since it contains three aces, not two. I have wrongly done so, since one of the normal lines (according to Eric) will be to cash the particular ace that an opponent has KQx of, then only to play the low trump, after which the opponent gains three tricks. I may also have changed the trump suit. In all our examples, spades have been trumps - I may not have noticed that here it was clubs. Anyway, I doubt if Eric will be of the opinion that the particular trump suit matters. And then I did not reply any further. I fail to see what this example has any differently from any of the others. I will give this claimer three tricks, by cashing his three aces in random order, seeing one of them being ruffed, and getting back in by either another ace or a ruff himself, after which he cashes any of the remaining aces in random order. If there is more than one trump out, I shall of course allow declarer to first chose the ace that opponent has Kx of, then an ace that opponent is void in, which gets ruffed. Defender then draws the C2 and cashes his King, for 3 tricks to defenders. Any other problems? I have been very polite here, but can anyone tell me what this example has brought to the discussion and why I was wrong not answering to it in the first place? Herman. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 6 17:50:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:50:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net> References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net> Message-ID: <498C6A42.6010401@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > I do believe I detect a pattern here. > So did I. Herman. > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 6 17:51:26 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 17:51:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C5D72.7020304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000701c9887b$27259860$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Nigel] > Bystry would be right if only one person were available who could make a ruling. Richard's examples were a 100 table Swiss and the Autralian Womens' Teams Championship. In such cases, I reckon there would be more than one director. Even in a club event there is usually somebody else whom the director can delegate to make a ruling. We have 100 table tournaments with about 5-6 directors on the floor. It looks like an appropriate number, but despite that sometimes players do have to wait too long to get a TD at their table. And have in mind that there are sectors - it is impractical to call a TD from the far side of the hall, the time that he uses to slalom among the tables is too long. Sometimes there are even different rooms, what then? Again, mechanical rulings are no problem, you may always request reading from the lawbook if you are suspicious or appeal later. Judgement rulings are consulted with other TDs during the round (if there are no TD calls) or between them. As to "delegating", it may happen, but that way you are creating *real* suspicions of bias - player ruling in a case of other players who compete with him for a better tournament place. Please, Nigel, you have a right to state any opinions you wish. But try to support them with examples. You are frequently accusing experts, TDs, ACs of inappropriate behavior. But you have great troubles to give any real arguments, other than you and your friends think so. Show us the rulings in which biased TDs hurted you or your friends. Or show us the cases in which experts hurted you or your friends because of "reverse hesitation" (one of your hobby-horses), or in any other unlawful way. Show us the cases in which you or your friends got un unfavourable rulings because your/their opponents were experts. As it is now your are simply offending large groups of players and officials. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 6 17:52:01 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 16:52:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias In-Reply-To: <004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net> <004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498C6AB1.9030002@talktalk.net> [Maciej] And now some counter-examples: 1. when judging whether to give PPs or not the TD takes a player's status into consideration - experts will get them more often, the same goes for AMWMs or other "deposit" decisions2 2. beginners have more freedom in hesitating (their variations in tempo often do not transmit any specific information), LA decisions are sometimes in their favour, claim decisions too (they are not deemed to take a complex squeeze line if that is less favourable) Finally, take this example showing that class of player has to count: 3. the opponents abuse UI and the result is later adjusted to another contract played by NOS. The expert tells the TD that he will play so and so, drawing inferences from the opponents' bidding and finding a fine throw-in/squeeze. The TD judges it probable and awards such result (or gives it a significant weight). Bunny in the same situations says nothing, he seems to be satisfied with adjusted result following normal, simple play. Then he gets to know from his expert friend that there is a fine, complex play to reach a better score. Now he appeals claiming that he would find that line. Do you really think that the AC should rule in his favour? [Nigel] I've numbered Maciej's examples for ease of reference. Our experience differs. 1. Does Maciej know of a case where a world-champion received a PP or AMWM? 2. Does Maciej know of a case where a beginner gained because he was deemed incapable of executing a squeeze? Anyway, *most* LA and claim decisions favour the expert. Especially if he is deemed to be able to execute a complex squeeze, in spite of completely losing the place. 3. I agree with Maciej that the director and committee should discount the value of a *victim*'s statement if it is belated. More worrying is when the director treats the expert *false-claimer* favourably. Also, such favouritism depends more on the law-breaker's *reputation* than on his actual level of *expertise*. This tends to increase discrimination against strangers and enemies. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 6 17:53:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:53:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498C0BBE.40504@jldata.fi> References: <498C0BBE.40504@jldata.fi> Message-ID: On Feb 6, 2009, at 5:06 AM, Lapinjatka wrote: > Look this: > KQx > AKx > QJxx > Axx > x A109xxx > Jxx xxxx > AK10xx xx > xxxx x > Jxx > Qxx > xx > KQJ10x > Bidding: 2s (weak)- pass-pass-3nt- all pass > Lead: Spade 10, J, x,x > Second trick: S x, dia x, S K, S x > At this moment North claims: I take my tricks, 10 tricks for me. > How would you rule: > There is no way to avoid 11 tricks, if N discards last spade to club. > Would you give him 11 tricks. > No, you would not: only 10 tricks. > But claimer still get much more tricks, that he deserved. > Why, very long time ago, I played this hand, but I didn't claim. > Instead I started to take my tricks, one by one. > Unfortunately I started with spade Q, what didn't any more won. And > they > took 4 spades and 2 dias, 2 off. > > Would you really rule two off, if one claims in this situation. Or can > claimer sometimes have benefit with claim? > No, i didn't think, that s Q was high, no way, only big slip of mind, > what I knew immediately after playing it. We recognize that players do make irrational plays, and they stand made. That doesn't justify resolving doubtful points in a claim by presuming that the claimer will play irrationally. Nobody would rule two off here, and very few would agree with Juuso that this in any way constituted declarer "benefiting" from his claim. When a claimer's intent is obvious, we do not punish him for the technical infraction of failing to specify his prospective line of play card by card. This is the easiest situation of all. Some of declarer's cards are obviously cashing winners. The remainder, if played, may not cash. He has correctly counted his cashers, and offered a claim for that number of the remaining tricks. We presume a claim statement to the effect that he will cash his cashers, in any order, discarding in the least favorable manner that is not irrational (he need not state that he won't discard any of the top tricks he claimed with), and exiting with the least favorable remaining card after he has done so, and adjudicate the claim on that basis. The usual fly in this ointment is the definition of "obviously cashing" winners. No problem here. We "allow" him to play AKx opposite Qxx for three tricks, even though he has not explicitly demonstrated his familiarity with L1. But if he wants to be allowed to cash H QJx opposite 10xx after he has earlier played his king to an opponent's ace, he had better use the word "hearts" in his claim. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 6 18:10:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:10:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000c01c98865$27aaa8e0$76fffaa0$@com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <001501c984bf$6312db90$293892b0$@no> <00bc01c98830$e8db8c80$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c98850$891fbe90$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000101c9885e$55c0c590$014250b0$@no> <000c01c98865$27aaa8e0$76fffaa0$@com> Message-ID: <001a01c9887d$dc77d460$95677d20$@no> On Behalf Of David Burn > [SP] > > I consider that part of the laws absolutely unambiguous and clear: > > If, in the selected (among alternatives) line of play, at the moment > declarer must make a choice on the location of a particular card (or cards) > one opponent has ALREADY shown out, then, and only then, is declarer allowed > to "know" that the crucial card(s) is/are held by the other opponent. > > [DALB] > > There may be some confusion here. Let us amend the example thus: > > North (dummy) > None > Q102 > None > 2 > West East > None None > AJ98 None > None AKQJ > None None > South > None > K > None > 543 > > South is not absolutely sure whether his clubs are good (in fact, they are) > but he "knows" that the king of hearts is good (in fact, it is not). He > claims optimistically, saying that he will play a heart to the king and cash > the clubs. > > West objects, saying that he will win the king of hearts with the ace. May > declarer be presumed to finesse on the heart return, even though East has > not shown out of hearts at the moment declarer claims? Of course yes! At the time he must decide which heart to play from Dummy on the heart return from West, East has already shown out (in the previous trick) so declarer knows now that the finesse is obvious. The claimer is allowed to take into consideration information that necessarily will develop during the assumed play conforming to the claim statement had the claim not been made. This is the same principle that applies in the following situation, Declarer has trump 9, 8 and 7 and a small club, Dummy has trump 6 and 4 and is void in clubs. Declarer claims the rest on a ruff of his losing club but has miscounted the trumps as the 5 is still out. If this trump is held by LHO the claim is good but if it is held by RHO (who is also void in clubs) the claimer will lose a trick. Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 6 18:44:14 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:44:14 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias In-Reply-To: <000701c9887b$27259860$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C5D72.7020304@talktalk.net> <000701c9887b$27259860$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498C76EE.1070006@talktalk.net> [Bystry] Please, Nigel, you have a right to state any opinions you wish. But try to support them with examples. You are frequently accusing experts, TDs, ACs of inappropriate behavior. But you have great troubles to give any real arguments, other than you and your friends think so. Show us the rulings in which biased TDs hurted you or your friends. Or show us the cases in which experts hurted you or your friends because of "reverse hesitation" (one of your hobby-horses), or in any other unlawful way. Show us the cases in which you or your friends got un unfavourable rulings because your/their opponents were experts. As it is now your are simply offending large groups of players and officials. [Nigel] I've received very few bad rulings and they've been rectified on appeal. My friends are good losers who wouldn't want me to winge on their behalf. There was typical recent case on BLML, however, that may illustrate the kind of thing, about which I complain. Perhaps Richard can find it. At match-pointed pairs, a player, acting on misinformation, doubled his non-vulnerable opponents in a part-score, instead of bidding to a vulnerable slam. Then the victims misdefended to take the contract one down instead of several. They claimed damage but were denied redress because of their subsequent misdefence. BLML commentators agreed with the ruling. I disagreed: - When assessing possible redress, BLMLers considered only a small slam. Presumably they felt that the error-prone victims would be incapable of reaching the cold grand. - Only legal-experts could concentrate on defending a non-vulnerable part-score. At MPs, they know that penalty will be be derisory, compared with a vulnerable slam. - BLMLers felt that the victim's subsequent mistakes meant that the table result should stand. IMO this was unfair to the victims and over-generoous to the law-breakers. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 6 18:46:04 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 12:46:04 -0500 Subject: [blml] Bashing people In-Reply-To: <498C0FA5.8060408@ripe.net> References: <498A24E6.4050409@aol.com> <498A9FD5.3090702@skynet.be> <498C0A7D.8010806@skynet.be> <498C0FA5.8060408@ripe.net> Message-ID: <0AEDA685-999C-4232-9B12-CD6EEDA81256@starpower.net> On Feb 6, 2009, at 5:23 AM, Henk Uijterwaal wrote: > Hi all, > > Speaking as moderator of the list... > > I usually don't interfere with the discussion on the list. However, > with some recent postings that included text like: > >>> XX has reached the point at which the merits of moderated lists, >>> from which assholes and liars may be ejected, become obvious. > >> I might say the same thing. Who are you to call me an asshole? Our >> opinions differ, that's all. > > I think we have gone past discussing bridge laws (for which the list > is intended) and into the area of personal attacks (for which the > list is NOT intended). I tried to find out where things went wrong > and who was responsible, but failed. This was a continuous process > going more and more in the wrong direction. > > So, I suggest the following: > > = We stop discussing the specific rulings that led to this point. > > = We all accept that we have our differences of opinion. > > = Everybody who feels like calling somebody else an asshole, liar, > or whatever, takes a 1 week cool down period and DOES NOT POST > during this week. > > Henk In one of the oldest cliches in the movies, the hero's best buddy punches him in the jaw and knocks him down. The hero gets up with blood on his face and says, "Thanks. I needed that." Thanks, Henk. I'll be back in a week. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 6 19:03:52 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:03:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C6AB1.9030002@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001901c98885$44ff9c00$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej] > And now some counter-examples: > > 1. when judging whether to give PPs or not the TD takes a player's status > into consideration - experts will get them more often, the same goes for > AMWMs or other "deposit" decisions2 > 2. beginners have more freedom in hesitating (their variations in tempo often > do not transmit any specific information), LA decisions are sometimes in > their favour, claim decisions too (they are not deemed to take a complex > squeeze line if that is less favourable) > Finally, take this example showing that class of player has to count: > 3. the opponents abuse UI and the result is later adjusted to another > contract played by NOS. The expert tells the TD that he will play so and so, > drawing inferences from the opponents' bidding and finding a fine > throw-in/squeeze. The TD judges it probable and awards such result (or gives > it a significant weight). Bunny in the same situations says nothing, he > seems to be satisfied with adjusted result following normal, simple play. > Then he gets to know from his expert friend that there is a fine, complex > play to reach a better score. Now he appeals claiming that he would find > that line. Do you really think that the AC should rule in his favour? > > [Nigel] > I've numbered Maciej's examples for ease of reference. Our experience differs. > 1. Does Maciej know of a case where a world-champion received a PP or AMWM? http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html Read them randomly, you will find a multitude of statements like "the appelants were experienced enough to understand that they could not win this appeal. They got an AMWM", "the appelants were inexperienced, so that AC prefered education and didn't give an AWMW", "the offenders were an experienced pair, they were given a PP for a blatant use of UI". Bocchi, Duboin, Lauria, Versace are certainly World Champions and they got (not sure that all of them, some for 100%, check the casebooks) AMWMs. Some American WCs certainly too. Michal Kwiecien is a Pairs World Champion and he got a PP in our First Division. Balicki-Zmudzinski are World Champions and they got a whopping PP for hiding agreements. Andrzej Wilkosz is a World Champion and he got PPs for a slow play. I gave you mostly examples of Polish players because I know them better. Ask people from other countries and they will give you more such examples (it's hard for me to know about PPs given at the table, they are not in the casebooks). > 2. Does Maciej know of a case where a beginner gained because he was deemed incapable of executing a squeeze? No. But I know about a case in which a poor player (even not beginner) gained because he was not deemed to play for an elimination and throw-in, which would result in a poorer score because of declarer's misreading of the deal. > Anyway, *most* LA and claim decisions favour the expert. Anyway, *most* English players cheat. Do you see any similarity between those statements? I'll leave it for you as a homework. > Especially if he is deemed to be able to execute a complex squeeze, in spite of completely losing the place. Such ruling would be totally wrong. If you're trying to convince me that wrong rulings happen, do not bother, I know it perfectly. That has nothing in common with bunny/expert status. I know only about one controversial claim-squeeze ruling (Hallberg's case) and there claim was perfectly valid with a correct statement. I'm personally against allowing claims on complex plays (it happens too often that the declarer misreads the discards), but the present laws say nothing like that and that case was decided correctly in my opinion (under 2007 laws it could be different, now the play after the claim may weight as an evidence). > 3. I agree with Maciej that the director and committee should discount the value of a *victim*'s statement if it is belated. More worrying is when the director treats the expert *false-claimer* favourably. It is worrying. But who does advocate being favourable to the false-claimers? Even Herman, whom I consider as a dove in ruling on claims, is surely in 99% of cases not favourable to them. > Also, such favouritism depends more on the law-breaker's *reputation* than on his actual level of *expertise*. This tends to increase discrimination against strangers and enemies. And how do you propose to measure "expertise"? There is always a possibility to find an approximate level of any bridge player. Usually the players now each other quite well, TDs have their own knowledge, one can analyse results, scores during the tournament, talk with the players. It would be extremerely rare to fail to get an approximation of anyone's bridge skill. As to your last sentence, that is another empty rhetoric. Regards Maciej From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 6 19:09:35 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:09:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498C0D41.80605@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> <498B573F.2060904@aol.com> <498C0D41.80605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498C7CDF.4070408@aol.com> "I must assume that that my meaning has come through and you realise that you were wrong in your previous post." (I have deleted the comma.) This is getting repetitive. The above sentence is arrogant and patronising. You are not the absolute authority to determine what is right and what is wrong. The proper formulation would once again be, "I disagree with you". Point taken with "bullshit" although I know much harsher expressions. The point was, however, that you wrote that I used "moonshine" and that was incorrect; I didn't. "We could all do...with a...thicker skin." Well said. Not sure if entirely accurate. Who is the only person in my memory to have (more than once) demanded apologies and felt insulted? JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> You have no basis to say you thought I had more sense than.... It is an >> insult, incidentally, you are not the one to judge how much sense others >> have. The correct (and polite) statement would be, "I disagree with >> you". You seem to equate disagreement with lack of sense. > > Jeff, I apologise for the wording, but I stand by my intention. If you > were to react on the meaning of my post, I would continue. If you choose > to react on my wording, I must assume that my meaning has come through, > and you realise that you were wrong in your previous post. > >> And, incidentally, the word I used was "bullshit". Your email (below) >> confirms my usage in my opinion. JE >> > > I am not allowed to use harsh words to you, but you feel free to use > bullshit over my contribution? > I believe we could all do with a bit more politeness, but also with a > bit thicker skin. > >> Herman De Wael schrieb: >>> Jeff, I thought you had more sense than this. >>> >>> Whatever the word, and as a native English speaker I allow you to choose >>> the best one yet, there is a qualitative difference between the trumps >>> and the side suits in the situation we are discussing here. >>> >>> Side suits are Rectangular: There are, in combined opponents' hands, the >>> same number or less of them than there higher ones in claimer's hand >>> combined with that of claimer's partner. >>> >>> The Trump suit is Square: There are, in opponent's hands, no more at all. >>> >>> I know full well that Squares are also Rectangles. >>> >>> But to say that with one Square and 3 Oblongs (I had to look that word >>> up), there is no difference between the four suits because they are all >>> Rectangles, is, quite basically, wrong. >>> > > I note, Jeff, that you did not interject anything here. > Does that mean that you agree? Or that you think it's the word you used > higher up? > In that last case, Jeff, there is really nothing further to say. To lose > the sight of logic so completely is ... (nothing comes to mind that > might be considered even slightly polite) ... let's say I believe you > are mistaken. > > Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 6 19:19:23 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:19:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498C0F81.7070401@skynet.be> References: <498A084A.8080105@consolidated.net> <498AA70B.8020304@skynet.be> <498B1EF6.6050005@consolidated.net> <498B5944.9040300@aol.com> <498C0F81.7070401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498C7F2B.1020805@aol.com> Point of order (and correct English). There was only one original case. There were other cases but they weren't original. See any dictionary for meaning of original. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Did anyone else notice that Herman didn't even mention the original case >> in his response to Robert? I wonder why. JE >> > > Maybe because Robert did not mention any of the (now several) original > cases in his post. I commented on the wording, not on the case. > Herman. > >> Robert Park schrieb: >>> Herman De Wael wrote: >>>>
Robert >>>> Park wrote: >>>>> ; >>>>> : >>>>> And to Herman: I still don't understand why you would award the best >>>>> of all possible outcomes to someone who makes a defective claim. >>>>> >>>>> --Bob Park >>>>> >>>> Put it like this, I don't understand either. >>>> But then there are a number of things wrong in your sentence. >>>> 1) "the best of all possible outcomes"? No, never! >>>> This is what is wrong with blml. We find an interesting case, and we >>>> discuss it endlessly. And so we think this is the only case. We ignore >>>> all those others where we just apply the laws. >>>> Of course I don't give the best of all possible outcomes. In the >>>> Tenerife example, the best possible outcome if 4 tricks to declarer >>>> (with defender unblocking his highest trump). And the Tenerife example >>>> would not have been there if there were some other way for defender to >>>> get a second trick. So of course I don't give the best of all possible >>>> outcomes. >>>> But it's true, I don't award the worst of all outcomes. Not because I >>>> don't want to. But because I consider it to be not a possible outcome. >>>> So if Robert wants to rephrase his question: why don't you consider >>>> this outcome not possible - then I will answer it - and I think I have. >>>> >>>> 2) a defective claim. >>>> These are not defective claims - well, not any more so than any other. >>>> What I mean is this: any claim that we are called upon is a defective >>>> claim. >>>> >>>> So if Robert wishes to know how I deal with the 300 or so claim >>>> rulings I deal with every year, he can ask. But the question as put >>>> here is senseless. >>>> >>>> Herman. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>
>>> "Senseless? Does this come from the from the bashing engine we have been >>> hearing about? >>> >>> The original situation was explained thus: >>> >>> "There is a controversy about the "correct" ruling in the following >>> case. Two card end position, diamonds trump. Declarer has diam. 6 and >>> a high heart. A defender has diam. 8 and a high spade. The other hands >>> are irrelevant. Declarer (in his hand) simply shows his last two cards >>> (simultaneously) and says, "I believe there are no more trumps out". He >>> makes no further statement. In my opinion he is thus claiming the last >>> two tricks. A defender objects and calls the TD. " >>> >>> Your ruling, Herman, (as I recall it) was that declarer should be >>> awarded one trick...the best of all possible outcomes for him. >>> >>> I fail to see how you "know" (or even think it highly probable) that he >>> would lead his high heart first. Absent that presumption, I fail to see >>> how you can justify awarding declarer "the best of all possible outcomes." >>> >>> --Bob Park >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Fri Feb 6 19:21:50 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:21:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> > Herman gives flagrant offense not merely because he "fails to > correctly capture the essence of another BLMLer's position", but > because, when he tires of endlessly repeating the same arguments and > collecting the same refutations, he falls back on characterizing the > "essence of another BLMLer's position" as an intellectually dishonest > veiled ad hominem attack. Just in the past few days... I agree with Eric wholeheartedly. Herman implements the well known trick - when he's losing the debate, he starts to use arguments of the "and in your country they beat Jews" kind. I was accused of "Herman-bashing" and "Maciej is right because he is Maciej" in spite of the fact that I patiently responded to all Herman's arguments and didn't attack him at all. Making a victim of himself is Herman's standard modus operandi. That's why I liked David's funny yarn about "Herman's wrongness" so much. Another thing which is irritating when debating with Herman - he has a tendency to "accidentally overlook" those emails which are awkward for him. He responds to 5/6 of emails to which he still has some arguments, but avoids the one to which he has none. It regards not only different emails, also the contents of single ones. He is firstly stating a "strong" argument, then it is refuted in a response, and in following Herman's response it is no more commented. Has anyone actually seen Herman writing "sorry, I was wrong, your counter-argument is correct"? I haven't. It is also a well known trick - by admitting that you were wrong you expose it to all the readers, by quietly omitting awkward passages of text you have a chance people will overlook it and won't see that you were completely wrong. Herman is one of the best eristic writers in BLML, but that fortunately doesn't make him actually win the discussions. Regards Maciej From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 6 19:24:07 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:24:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! (was Claim law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <009901c98849$8d8d7d20$2401a8c0@p41600> References: <009901c98849$8d8d7d20$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <498C8047.6080602@aol.com> Did the incident you recount below really happen? Unbelievable! Does the fellow still direct? Is the national authority aware of his response(s) to you? JE Larry BENNETT schrieb: > As a young and inexperienced player, I asked the td > if I might appeal his ruling please. > > He replied that there was no point in so doing, as > they were the chairman and his wife, and there was > no way that I'd win. So no I couldn't. > > I asked if I might see the law book. > > He replied of course not, that is only for > directors. > > That is when I first took an interest in directing. > > lnb > **************************************** > Agamemnon : Ancient Mycenaean cooking device. > **************************************** > >>> In *practice*, my impression is that directors > and appeals >>> committees do rule in favour of sufficiently > popular and expert >>> declarers. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From albert.ohana at club-internet.fr Fri Feb 6 19:29:14 2009 From: albert.ohana at club-internet.fr (albert.ohana at club-internet.fr) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:29:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailing list Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090206/c08323c1/attachment-0001.htm From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 6 19:51:48 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailing list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <498C86C4.4030401@aol.com> I am quite puzzled by the (below) message. I am not Albert Ohana and don't know who he is. I do not wish to be removed from any mailing list (including blml) and have made no application for this. If one was received it was malicious and I'd be interested in knowing who sent it. But perhaps this is all some sort of a mix-up since my name or email address does not appear in the message below. I have no idea why I received it. JE albert.ohana at club-internet.fr schrieb: > > ----Message d'origine---- > >De: > blml-confirm+80130c062378f93e41b1473ed9f02a6e2b4df2db at amsterdamned.org > >A: albert.ohana at club-internet.fr > >Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:31:01 +0100 > > toybox.amsterdamned.org > > autolearn=no version=3.2.4 > >Sujet: Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailing list > > > >Mailing list removal confirmation notice for mailing list blml > > > >We have received a request for the removal of your email address, > >"albert.ohana at club-internet.fr" from the blml at amsterdamned.org mailing > >list. To confirm that you want to be removed from this mailing list, > >simply reply to this message, keeping the Subject: header intact. Or > >visit this web page: > > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/confirm/blml/80130c062378f93e41b1473ed9f02a6e2b4df2db > > > > > > >Or include the following line -- and only the following line -- in a > >message to blml-request at amsterdamned. org: > > > > confirm 80130c062378f93e41b1473ed9f02a6e2b4df2db > > > >Note that simply sending a `reply' to this message should work from > >most mail readers, since that usually leaves the Subject: line in the > >right form (additional "Re:" text in the Subject: is okay). > > > >If you do not wish to be removed from this list, please simply > >disregard this message. If you think you are being maliciously > >removed from the list, or have any other questions, send them to > >blml-owner at amsterdamned.org. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at irvine.com Fri Feb 6 19:59:20 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:59:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailing list In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Feb 2009 19:51:48 +0100." <498C86C4.4030401@aol.com> Message-ID: <200902061851.KAA12251@mailhub.irvine.com> > I am quite puzzled by the (below) message. I am not Albert Ohana and > don't know who he is. I do not wish to be removed from any mailing list > (including blml) and have made no application for this. I got the same message. It looks to me as though a confirmation message got sent from a BLML address to Albert Ohana, and then through either an auto-responder screwup or a human error, Albert Ohana's computer forwarded this to the entire list. -- Adam From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Fri Feb 6 19:43:10 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:43:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! (was Claim law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009901c98849$8d8d7d20$2401a8c0@p41600> <498C8047.6080602@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c9888f$c8fc7960$2401a8c0@p41600> Yep, but in those days, you wouldn't be allowed in the club without shirt, tie and jacket. An emergency meeting of the committee in the extreme summer of '76 amended the rule to....gentlemen may remove their jackets if all 3 other players do not object. Ah! nostalgia's not what it used to be... He's long departed now. lnb > Did the incident you recount below really happen? Unbelievable! Does > the fellow still direct? Is the national authority aware of his > response(s) to you? JE > > Larry BENNETT schrieb: > > As a young and inexperienced player, I asked the td > > if I might appeal his ruling please. > > > > He replied that there was no point in so doing, as > > they were the chairman and his wife, and there was > > no way that I'd win. So no I couldn't. > > > > I asked if I might see the law book. > > > > He replied of course not, that is only for > > directors. > > > > That is when I first took an interest in directing. From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 6 21:34:30 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 21:34:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] 7th EBL Tournament Directors Course Message-ID: <003001c9889a$50a68040$15844c59@chello.pl> Does anybody know when does it take place? Even approximate answers will be appreciated. Thanks Maciej From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 6 21:36:31 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:36:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be><4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr><000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <8CB54F96860FC35-858-2200@webmail-da20.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <08FC71CFE6194827A78FDAC65B2FD039@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: gampas at aol.com To: blml at amsterdamned.org Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 4:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] more claiming questions >[DALB] (discussing the claim for ten tricks where declarer needed to knock >out the AD) ?I would rule nine tricks and tell him to include what he is "obviously" going to do in his claim statement next time. I don't know whether he was actually going to do this or whether he had simply miscounted his top tricks in the first place. And I don't care. >[paul lamford] I don't care either whether he was actually going to do what >he stated or whether he had miscounted his top tricks. I am not going to be >able to guess his state of mind, nor does the law require me to do so. I >only have to decide whether it is normal to do anything else than knock out >the ace of diamonds before playing the ace of spades and, if the hearts are >not 4-3, all three hearts. >For all but the weakest novice, I would award 10 tricks. So would I.. David, read the claim Law. If the guy claims 10 tricks it's (in this case) because he has them. Mrs Guggenheim would claim 9 and that's all she would get. John AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 7 01:39:24 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:39:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <08FC71CFE6194827A78FDAC65B2FD039@JOHN> References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be><4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr><000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <8CB54F96860FC35-858-2200@webmail-da20.sysops.aol.com> <08FC71CFE6194827A78FDAC65B2FD039@JOHN> Message-ID: <000001c988bc$86e6c670$94b45350$@com> [JP] So would I.. David, read the claim Law. If the guy claims 10 tricks it's (in this case) because he has them. [DALB] It's all right, John. I can read. But I reject more or less completely the notion that someone who claims ten tricks necessarily knows that he has them. Hand repeated for convenience here, because there have been difficulties when someone refers obliquely (and often wrongly) to an example in a previous post without quoting it: Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx Contract: 3NT by South. Lead: a heart. What should I reply if, after the cards have been faced, the guy says that in fact I ought to have given him eleven tricks, because he would have won the opening lead and played a diamond at once to set up his tenth trick, and that diamond would have been won by West with the singleton ace? That is a "normal" line for someone who claimed ten tricks to follow - indeed, one might say that failure to do it would be "abnormal" (it is absurd to play East for the singleton ace of diamonds, since West would not have led a heart if his diamonds had been J109xxx). No trick may be conceded that could not have been lost on any "normal" line of play, so that... The root of the problem is that it is fundamentally ridiculous to adjudicate claims on the basis of what would have happened if the hand had been played to a finish. No one knows, and no one should care. I say again: the *only* sensible way to adjudicate claims is for the claimer to put his cards on the table and state how many tricks he claims, and the order in which his cards will be played to ensure those tricks. Any cards not encompassed in the claim statement will be deemed played in the legal order most advantageous to the opponents. This would not significantly reduce the number of good claims. What it would do is significantly reduce the number of bum claims, and reduce to almost zero the time and effort spent adjudicating bum claims. Moreover, it would significantly reduce the number of messages to BLML in which someone accuses someone else of being an asshole. David Burn London, England From anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 7 01:54:00 2009 From: anne.jones1 at ntlworld.com (Anne Jones) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 00:54:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! (was Claim law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <009901c98849$8d8d7d20$2401a8c0@p41600><498C8047.6080602@aol.com> <000001c9888f$c8fc7960$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <0F02837506EC4094B90164D091B4DDD0@Anne> I think the club should recind that exceptional arrangement. Standards have fallen enough as it is. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry BENNETT" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Director, darling! (was Claim law) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Yep, but in those days, you wouldn't be allowed in > the club without shirt, tie and jacket. > > An emergency meeting of the committee in the extreme > summer of '76 amended the rule to....gentlemen may > remove their jackets if all 3 other players do not > object. > > Ah! nostalgia's not what it used to be... > > He's long departed now. > > lnb > >> Did the incident you recount below really happen? > Unbelievable! Does >> the fellow still direct? Is the national > authority aware of his >> response(s) to you? JE >> >> Larry BENNETT schrieb: >> > As a young and inexperienced player, I asked the > td >> > if I might appeal his ruling please. >> > >> > He replied that there was no point in so doing, > as >> > they were the chairman and his wife, and there > was >> > no way that I'd win. So no I couldn't. >> > >> > I asked if I might see the law book. >> > >> > He replied of course not, that is only for >> > directors. >> > >> > That is when I first took an interest in > directing. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.18/1936 - Release Date: 02/04/09 16:35:00 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 7 02:43:51 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:43:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailinglist References: <200902061851.KAA12251@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <005501c988c7$18f468b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:59 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailinglist > >> I am quite puzzled by the (below) message. I am not Albert Ohana and >> don't know who he is. I do not wish to be removed from any mailing list >> (including blml) and have made no application for this. > > I got the same message. It looks to me as though a confirmation > message got sent from a BLML address to Albert Ohana, and then through > either an auto-responder screwup or a human error, Albert Ohana's > computer forwarded this to the entire list. > > -- Adam > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 7 02:46:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 01:46:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] 7th EBL Tournament Directors Course References: <003001c9889a$50a68040$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <005601c988c7$19398800$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:34 PM Subject: [blml] 7th EBL Tournament Directors Course > Does anybody know when does it take place? Even approximate answers will > be > appreciated. > > Thanks > > Maciej > +=+ As far as I have gathered, not in 2009. A likely time is perhaps the first Quarter of 2010. But there is nothing official yet, as far as I am aware. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From albert.ohana at club-internet.fr Sat Feb 7 09:08:36 2009 From: albert.ohana at club-internet.fr (albert.ohana at club-internet.fr) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:08:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tr: Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailing list Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090207/5c4b4303/attachment.htm From henk at ripe.net Sat Feb 7 09:50:37 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:50:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Your confirmation is required to leave the blml mailing list In-Reply-To: <200902061851.KAA12251@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200902061851.KAA12251@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <498D4B5D.2060602@ripe.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> I am quite puzzled by the (below) message. I am not Albert Ohana and >> don't know who he is. I do not wish to be removed from any mailing list >> (including blml) and have made no application for this. > > I got the same message. It looks to me as though a confirmation > message got sent from a BLML address to Albert Ohana, and then through > either an auto-responder screwup or a human error, Albert Ohana's > computer forwarded this to the entire list. This is correct, I'll sort this out myself. Please ignore the mail and nobody but Albert will be unsubscribed. 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Feb 7 11:14:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:14:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: <002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net> <002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> Herman gives flagrant offense not merely because he "fails to >> correctly capture the essence of another BLMLer's position", but >> because, when he tires of endlessly repeating the same arguments and >> collecting the same refutations, he falls back on characterizing the >> "essence of another BLMLer's position" as an intellectually dishonest >> veiled ad hominem attack. Just in the past few days... > > I agree with Eric wholeheartedly. Herman implements the well known trick - > when he's losing the debate, he starts to use arguments of the "and in your > country they beat Jews" kind. I was accused of "Herman-bashing" and "Maciej > is right because he is Maciej" in spite of the fact that I patiently > responded to all Herman's arguments and didn't attack him at all. Yes Maciej, you patiently responded by an argument that boiled down to "we're right because we're in the majority". > Making a > victim of himself is Herman's standard modus operandi. That's why I liked > David's funny yarn about "Herman's wrongness" so much. > > Another thing which is irritating when debating with Herman - he has a > tendency to "accidentally overlook" those emails which are awkward for him. > He responds to 5/6 of emails to which he still has some arguments, but > avoids the one to which he has none. And here I was trying to limit myself because every time the monthly statistics are up, I'm on top or near it. > It regards not only different emails, > also the contents of single ones. He is firstly stating a "strong" argument, > then it is refuted in a response, and in following Herman's response it is > no more commented. Has anyone actually seen Herman writing "sorry, I was > wrong, your counter-argument is correct"? I haven't. It is also a well known > trick - by admitting that you were wrong you expose it to all the readers, > by quietly omitting awkward passages of text you have a chance people will > overlook it and won't see that you were completely wrong. > Maciej, Maciej, Maciej, if these statements are not true of every single one of us, then I'm really becoming paranoid. Seriously, can there be any post more of a personal attack than this one. Need I really stand for this? Afte what Henk said? > Herman is one of the best eristic writers in BLML, but that fortunately > doesn't make him actually win the discussions. > No, what doesn't make him win the discussions is the very irritating tendency of some of you, who, when I have carefully defused their argument, happily go on with another argument, only for me to also defuse that one, after which they jump back a third and then back to the first one. I have not seen a single counter-argument against my contentions, and have given several counter-arguments against yours. I never find counter-counter-arguments, but also never people accepting that they were wrong in their original argumentation. I have never stated that mine is the only possible correct ruling in this claim. I have constantly argued that we need more guidance. You have tried to prove that my ruling is against the law, and I have always countered your arguments. You have never rescinded even one of the arguments held out against me. People have stated the biggest lunacies in this thread, like the fact that there is no difference between free trumps and high side-suiters. This ought to be self-evident, but when I wrote that I thought someone had more sense than that, I was accused of bad language. I wanted to stop this thread, after Henk's post. Not because I suddenly thought you guys were right, but because I realised you were not going to agree to anything I said, however logical it was. I shall not however, stop posting if you continue to hound me. I regard this post as severely critical and over the top. I would wish that some sensible people would join me in calling Maciej to reason for this post of his. I feel gravely offended. And if you call that "in your country they beat Jews" kind, then you're guilty of racial prejudices as well. I thought the level of discussion deserved to be higher than this. > Regards > really? You should adapt your sig-file to match your views. Offended, Herman. > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Feb 7 11:17:20 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:17:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498C7CDF.4070408@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498A1A8B.6060108@aol.com> <498AA165.5070601@skynet.be> <498B573F.2060904@aol.com> <498C0D41.80605@skynet.be> <498C7CDF.4070408@aol.com> Message-ID: <498D5FB0.2000402@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > "I must assume that that my meaning has come through and you realise > that you were wrong in your previous post." (I have deleted the comma.) > This is getting repetitive. The above sentence is arrogant and > patronising. You are not the absolute authority to determine what is > right and what is wrong. The proper formulation would once again be, "I > disagree with you". > Point taken with "bullshit" although I know much harsher expressions. > The point was, however, that you wrote that I used "moonshine" and that > was incorrect; I didn't. > "We could all do...with a...thicker skin." Well said. Not sure if > entirely accurate. Who is the only person in my memory to have (more > than once) demanded apologies and felt insulted? JE > That could have two reasons - that person might just be the only one who is getting insulted. But I'm probably paranoid. But please remark that in your post - three generations ago, you told me that me saying I thought you had more sense was felt as an insult to you, and you asked for (and got) an apology. Herman. From Gampas at aol.com Sat Feb 7 13:33:47 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:33:47 EST Subject: [blml] more claiming questions Message-ID: [DALB] Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx Contract: 3NT by South. Lead: a heart. What should I reply if, after the cards have been faced, the guy says that in fact I ought to have given him eleven tricks, because he would have won the opening lead and played a diamond at once to set up his tenth trick, and that diamond would have been won by West with the singleton ace? [paul lamford] This is just a case of deciding whether leading towards the queen is "irrational" for the reasons you gave, that the opening leader cannot have D JT9xxx, or whether that line is "normal" for the class of player. Certainly it would be under the old wording careless and inferior, and I would award 10 tricks and not 11, and certainly not 9, nor the number that would be made by cashing the ace of spades at trick two and then contributing the king and queen of diamonds to the third trick. I think the wording of the claim law is more than adequate. It puts a strain on the TD to decide on what is "normal" play, but no more so than the cricket umpire who has to decide on whether that ball would have hit the stumps, or the tennis umpire who has to decide if a ball hit a line or just missed. Of course, technology has now become available to help them with their tasks, and to slow down the game at the same time. Perhaps it is time for there to be a Deep Finesse "normal" which indicates the minimum number of tricks which will be made by each side from any position by "normal" play; and we can have DFN advanced, intermediate and novice, so that claims can be adjudicated with regard to the class of player; of course one will be able to type in his or her exact statement, and get a result within seconds. Then all the poor suffering TD has to do is award the declarer that number from any position and any claim - by a declarer or defender. Until then the current rules will do nicely. From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 6 21:39:37 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:39:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Painting ruffs References: <49895A71.9060907@ulb.ac.be> <14DC456C-1E10-431F-A175-26A2EF308155@starpower.net> Message-ID: <71F103627BE647AFA15B041EAF874F8B@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Painting ruffs > On Feb 4, 2009, at 4:05 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >> the guy who's careless enough not to state his >> line is careless enough not to have seen the problem. > > That's worded a bit harshly. I may be more tolerant than Alain of > the technical infraction of failing to "state [a] line" per se. > > I'd have written, "The guy who's careless enough not to mention the > problem is careless enough not to have seen the problem." > > Often a word or two suffices: "Safety play." "Unblocking." "Cross- > ruff." > I even allow "I know this one" > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 6 21:54:04 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:54:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C6AB1.9030002@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <08DC87E471EA413D8B78B0D0603716B5@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Expert Bias > [Maciej] > And now some counter-examples: > > 1. when judging whether to give PPs or not the TD takes a player's status > into consideration - experts will get them more often, the same goes for > AMWMs or other "deposit" decisions2 > 2. beginners have more freedom in hesitating (their variations in tempo > often > do not transmit any specific information), LA decisions are sometimes in > their favour, claim decisions too (they are not deemed to take a complex > squeeze line if that is less favourable) > Finally, take this example showing that class of player has to count: > 3. the opponents abuse UI and the result is later adjusted to another > contract played by NOS. The expert tells the TD that he will play so and > so, > drawing inferences from the opponents' bidding and finding a fine > throw-in/squeeze. The TD judges it probable and awards such result (or > gives > it a significant weight). Bunny in the same situations says nothing, he > seems to be satisfied with adjusted result following normal, simple play. > Then he gets to know from his expert friend that there is a fine, complex > play to reach a better score. Now he appeals claiming that he would find > that line. Do you really think that the AC should rule in his favour? > > [Nigel] > I've numbered Maciej's examples for ease of reference. Our experience > differs. > 1. Does Maciej know of a case where a world-champion received a PP or > AMWM? > 2. Does Maciej know of a case where a beginner gained because he was > deemed incapable of executing a squeeze? Anyway, *most* LA and claim > decisions favour the expert. Especially if he is deemed to be able to > execute a complex squeeze, in spite of completely losing the place. > 3. I agree with Maciej that the director and committee should discount the > value of a *victim*'s statement if it is belated. More worrying is when > the director treats the expert *false-claimer* favourably. This is arrant bullshit. john > > Also, such favouritism depends more on the law-breaker's *reputation* than > on his actual level of *expertise*. This tends to increase discrimination > against strangers and enemies. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sun Feb 8 03:59:46 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 02:59:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions References: <7C2CA5A2-75A9-4012-ACE0-D7290F720518@starpower.net> <4988AF47.5010605@skynet.be> <001201c98647$08764b20$1962e1 60$@com> <498958E0.7000204@ulb.ac.be><4989998A.6050807@meteo.fr><000601c986d6$19aa6310$4cff2930$@com> <8CB54F96860FC35-858-2200@webmail-da20.sysops.aol.com><08FC71CFE6194827A78FDAC65B2FD039@JOHN> <000001c988bc$86e6c670$94b45350$@com> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 12:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] more claiming questions > [JP] > > So would I.. David, read the claim Law. If the guy claims 10 tricks > it's > (in this case) because he has them. > > [DALB] > > It's all right, John. I can read. But I reject more or less completely the > notion that someone who claims ten tricks necessarily knows that he has > them. > Hmm, David. Now and then I think you overdo it. Occasionally I even disagree with you but I'm quite comfortable with your general approach, tending to agree with your general rant below. I like to keep lots of claimers' tricks. Perhaps this was a bad example. and as for the stiff Ace, well he led it the wrong way of course.- still 10, like he said. (... and yes it's possible he counted 9 tops as 10 and never intended to set up a diamond. It's also possible for a drinking team to win 28 matches on the go with me in it :) But I don't have enough doubt to resolve aganst the claimer. yet pigs have flown [see above] John > Hand repeated for convenience here, because there have been difficulties > when someone refers obliquely (and often wrongly) to an example in a > previous post without quoting it: > > Ax AKQ Kxx AQJxx > > xxx xx Qxx Kxxxx > > Contract: 3NT by South. Lead: a heart. > > What should I reply if, after the cards have been faced, the guy says that > in fact I ought to have given him eleven tricks, because he would have won > the opening lead and played a diamond at once to set up his tenth trick, > and > that diamond would have been won by West with the singleton ace? That is a > "normal" line for someone who claimed ten tricks to follow - indeed, one > might say that failure to do it would be "abnormal" (it is absurd to play > East for the singleton ace of diamonds, since West would not have led a > heart if his diamonds had been J109xxx). No trick may be conceded that > could > not have been lost on any "normal" line of play, so that... > > The root of the problem is that it is fundamentally ridiculous to > adjudicate > claims on the basis of what would have happened if the hand had been > played > to a finish. No one knows, and no one should care. I say again: the *only* > sensible way to adjudicate claims is for the claimer to put his cards on > the > table and state how many tricks he claims, and the order in which his > cards > will be played to ensure those tricks. Any cards not encompassed in the > claim statement will be deemed played in the legal order most advantageous > to the opponents. > > This would not significantly reduce the number of good claims. What it > would > do is significantly reduce the number of bum claims, and reduce to almost > zero the time and effort spent adjudicating bum claims. Moreover, it would > significantly reduce the number of messages to BLML in which someone > accuses > someone else of being an asshole. > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Feb 8 21:03:20 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:03:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be> Message-ID: <009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> > > I agree with Eric wholeheartedly. Herman implements the well known trick - > > when he's losing the debate, he starts to use arguments of the "and in your > > country they beat Jews" kind. I was accused of "Herman-bashing" and "Maciej > > is right because he is Maciej" in spite of the fact that I patiently > > responded to all Herman's arguments and didn't attack him at all. > > Yes Maciej, you patiently responded by an argument that boiled down to > "we're right because we're in the majority". Let's see: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045395.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045426.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type, BLML contributors' opinions used only as a proof that for some group of players cashing trumps first is "normal" http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045371.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045468.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045501.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045506.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type, even contains "The majority is not always right" statement. http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045466.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045507.html - no argument of a "majority is right" type http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045461.html - one argument of a "majority is right" type, about 5% of the whole argumentation in this contribution As you can see there was only one argument which bordered on "majority is right" in 9 of my contributions full of other arguments. So your statement is clearly false. You have an occasion to prove that you are able to admit to being wrong. Would you take it? > > Making a > > victim of himself is Herman's standard modus operandi. That's why I liked > > David's funny yarn about "Herman's wrongness" so much. > > > > Another thing which is irritating when debating with Herman - he has a > > tendency to "accidentally overlook" those emails which are awkward for him. > > He responds to 5/6 of emails to which he still has some arguments, but > > avoids the one to which he has none. > > And here I was trying to limit myself because every time the monthly > statistics are up, I'm on top or near it. I'm trying that too. But it doesn't explain the choice of the contributions to which you responded. > > It regards not only different emails, > > also the contents of single ones. He is firstly stating a "strong" argument, > > then it is refuted in a response, and in following Herman's response it is > > no more commented. Has anyone actually seen Herman writing "sorry, I was > > wrong, your counter-argument is correct"? I haven't. It is also a well known > > trick - by admitting that you were wrong you expose it to all the readers, > > by quietly omitting awkward passages of text you have a chance people will > > overlook it and won't see that you were completely wrong. > > > > Maciej, Maciej, Maciej, if these statements are not true of every single > one of us, then I'm really becoming paranoid. Show me the parts of your contributions in this topic which were snipped by me or ignored. You won't find any. So these statements are not true of every single one of us. That doesn't mean that there are people who *never ever* use unfair polemics technics, I did it myself, certainly more than once. But there are people who behave like that sporadically and those who overdo. In my opinion you belong to this second category. > Seriously, can there be any post more of a personal attack than this one. > Need I really stand for this? > Afte what Henk said? It is an opinion about your discussion style, not about you as a person. And know that I wouldn't even think about issuing it, if not for your inappropriate and unjustified words: [Herman] > But then again - if you are not going to believe the EBL AC, what chance > does anyone got. Maciej Bystry knows best. And so Maciej Bystry is > right. And of course Herman must be wrong. > Sorry to say it Maciej, but your argument always seems to come down to that. [/Herman] You have directly accused me of something which never ever crossed my mind - judging arguments by a person who issues them. You have suggested that I had an overgrown ego and that my self-admirance resulted in "that is so and so because I say so" way of discussing. If that isn't a personal attack on me, what is it? He who sows the wind... > > Herman is one of the best eristic writers in BLML, but that fortunately > > doesn't make him actually win the discussions. > > > > No, what doesn't make him win the discussions is the very irritating > tendency of some of you, who, when I have carefully defused their > argument, happily go on with another argument, only for me to also > defuse that one, after which they jump back a third and then back to the > first one. > I have not seen a single counter-argument against my contentions, and > have given several counter-arguments against yours. I never find > counter-counter-arguments, but also never people accepting that they > were wrong in their original argumentation. I'll leave the absurdity of your statement aside. I will only remind you of one counter-argument which you certainly did receive, from many contributors. For us playing the remaining sure winners in any random order is fully "normal", because any such order results in exactly the same outcome - taking all the tricks. That's what the claimer intends, that's what he gets in over 99% of cases. Making safe plays to protect themselves against, say, 0,005% possibility of an error does not even cross their minds. If it did, they would simply say something like "trumps last". It is very rare because those claimers are subjectivly *100% sure* that there was no forget or miscount. > I have never stated that mine is the only possible correct ruling in > this claim. I have constantly argued that we need more guidance. You > have tried to prove that my ruling is against the law, and I have always > countered your arguments. You have never rescinded even one of the > arguments held out against me. Show me where did I state that your ruling is against the law. I clearly stated that in my opinion EBL AC wanted to give a particular ruling, searched for lawful support and found it by applying totally wrong judgement. That's what it is all about - judging what is "normal" and what is not. EBL AC could decide that for them playing Ax - Kx other than dropping K under A is "not normal". Such decision would be of course silly, idiotic, totally wrong, but would not be a decision against the laws. So once again you wrongly accuse me of something improper (accusing you of supporting illegal use of the laws). > People have stated the biggest lunacies in this thread, like the fact > that there is no difference between free trumps and high side-suiters. Nobody stated anything like that. There are many positions in which this difference is significant (e.g. when there are still side suits to be established). *But not* in the case of only remaining sure winners. Then there is no difference because the special function of trumps ceased to exist - you don't have to ruff anything anymore. > This ought to be self-evident, but when I wrote that I thought someone > had more sense than that, I was accused of bad language. Not by me. I try to refrain myself from commenting on anyone's language, my own is not good enough. > I wanted to stop this thread, after Henk's post. Not because I suddenly > thought you guys were right, but because I realised you were not going > to agree to anything I said, however logical it was. That works in both ways. And it is offensive to all the "guys", I'm certain that many of us admitted to being wrong many times in our lives. > I shall not however, stop posting if you continue to hound me. > I regard this post as severely critical and over the top. You have a right to judge it as such. I regard your earlier accusations unfounded and offensive, but I'm not going to whine and force artificial apologies. > I would wish that some sensible people would join me in calling Maciej > to reason for this post of his. And I wish you get to understand that some of your contributions are regarded as irritating or offensive by other BLMLers. And that if I criticize your discussing style, it is not to "gain a point" or to bash you. It is to make our hypothetical future discussions more pleasant for *both* sides. I'm not a kind of person who blacklists anybody because I dislike something in his postings. I still wish to comment on his substantive arguments, that's what BLML is for - presenting the views about the laws. > I feel gravely offended. You shouldn't. But it is your problem. I didn't write anything I regret and didn't want to write. I'll leave it to others to judge the appropriateness of my contribution. You are always free to delete my messages or kill-file me. > And if you call that "in your country they beat Jews" kind, then you're > guilty of racial prejudices as well. I suspect you didn't understand what I meant. And even suggesting that I might support any form of chauvinism is highly inappropriate. "In your country they beat Jews/Black people" is a well known (at least in Poland) byword (probably coming from an old joke) used when describing the type of arguments issued by some people when they are losing the discussion and have no substantive arguments anymore. Such arguments usually are not in any way connected to the topic of the discussion, often are in a form of personal attacks or losing cause-result chain of logic (e.g. "remember? last time you lost the polemics with me, so you are certainly wrong again" or "my logic is certainly correct and your wrong"). In my opinion your "people disagree with Herman just because he is Herman whom they love to bash - if he wasn't Herman, they would agree with his logic" is a kind of such argument. > I thought the level of discussion deserved to be higher than this. Me too. I do not intend to continue beyond this email on that topic. But don't try to blame only the others for the fall of the level of discussion. Start with a mirror... Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Feb 8 21:06:46 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 21:06:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 7th EBL Tournament Directors Course References: <003001c9889a$50a68040$15844c59@chello.pl> <005601c988c7$19398800$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <009b01c98a28$c579f980$15844c59@chello.pl> > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "A book may be amusing with numerous > errors, or it may be very dull without a > single absurdity." > [Oliver Goldsmith] > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bystry" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 8:34 PM > Subject: [blml] 7th EBL Tournament Directors Course > > > > Does anybody know when does it take place? Even approximate answers will > > be > > appreciated. > > > > Thanks > > > > Maciej > > > +=+ As far as I have gathered, not in 2009. A likely > time is perhaps the first Quarter of 2010. But > there is nothing official yet, as far as I am aware. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Thank you. Somebody probably misunderstood something and therefore there appeared a rumour that the Course will take place in this year. Regards Maciej From blml at bridgescore.de Sun Feb 8 22:35:45 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:35:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Handling_of_=A712=2EC=2E1_and_=A712=2EC=2E?= =?iso-8859-15?q?2?= Message-ID: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de> Hi, we had discussion lately on when to apply ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 and I would like you to help me on this. Lets assume the following case: During a board, East and South get into a quarrel regarding behaviour at the table. East jumps up, leaves table and refuses to play the board. The bidding was: N O S W 1NT p 6NT There are 12 tricks - for a top score. Setting apart the question on how to penalise East (quarter, behead, reprimand), how should the board been scored: a) if the quarrel occurs after 6NT but before the bidding is done b) if there are a number of tricks (1-10) played before East leaves the table c) if there are 11 tricks played before the game is interrupted Does is matter for your decision whether the 12 tricks are from the top, depend on good play or a subject to a 50/50 guess? Best regards Christian From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 8 22:37:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 08:37:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Until now, the worst bushfires in Australia were the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983, when 75 people lost their lives. Now almost half of the state of Victoria may be declared a crime scene, with arsonists suspected to be responsible for many of the fires. At least 88 people have tragically died, with the death toll expected to rise, and more than 700 homes have been destroyed. To assist surviving victims, many of whom have as their only remaining possessions the clothes they stand up in, one can donate to a fund established by the Red Cross. (Aussie blmlers can donate by ringing the Red Cross on 1800 811 700 toll-free.) * * * >Bystry would be right if only one person were available who could >make a ruling. Richard's examples were a 100 table Swiss and the >Autralian Womens' Teams Championship. In such cases, I reckon >there would be more than one director. Even in a club event there >is usually somebody else whom the director can delegate to make a >ruling. >..... >Also, such favouritism depends more on the law-breaker's >*reputation* than on his actual level of *expertise*. This tends >to increase discrimination against strangers and enemies. European Championship 2007, Antalya (Turkey) Disciplinary Hearing 1 Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Grattan Endicott (England), PO Sundelin (Sweden) Open Teams Swiss B Round 2 The Facts: The facts leading up to this matter are described in Appeal 8. After the Director ruled in favour of East/West, North said "You are a Turkish Director, they are Turkish players, that's why you rule this way, I want another Tournament Director from another country." The Director: Reported this to the Appeals Committee, who asked the player to appear for a special hearing, which was held a few days after Appeal 8 had been dealt with. Present: The player, his representative, the Chief Tournament Director, the table Director, and a representative from the NBO of the player. The Player: The player's representative, who introduced himself as a frequent captain of national Junior and Open teams in which the player had appeared, spoke of the player's case. As to the facts of the case, they were slightly misrepresented. The Director had been the second one to reach the table, but the opponents had asked for a Turkish Director to make their case understood. The player believed that the Turkish Director should only translate, and let a neutral director handle the case. The player meant to politely ask for a neutral judge. The player added that he did not doubt that the Director's knowledge of the laws was excellent, and that he had not intended to insult him. The Committee: Stated that the EBL uses TD's who are above their nationality, who never give a ruling without consultation. Every ruling is the result of the combined pool of knowledge of a terrific team. Since the player is still quite young, the Committee decided to give guidance, not sanction. The Committee takes the facts very seriously and will remember them, and such things should never happen again, but there will be no formal report to the national federation. 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 Sun Feb 8 23:38:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:38:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Handling of Law 74A2 and Law 91 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: >...East and South get into a quarrel... Richard Hills: Ergo, determining an artificial or assigned adjusted score on the board in question is moot. Both East and South have grossly infracted Law 74A2, so for both East and South as TD I suspend them for the rest of the session under Law 91A. I then request the Tournament Organizer to arrange mutual apologies between East and South before the next session commences; if these are not forthcoming from one or both, then I request the Tournament Organizer to disqualify one or both under Law 91B. Merely because one has been provoked by another's rudeness is zero excuse for retaliating with a further Law 74A2 infraction. I also refer the behaviour of East and South to the local Conduct and Ethics Committee under Law 81C7. What's the problem? Yes, rudeness from otherwise sensible people is often the problem, often solved by simply summoning the Director rather than taking the Law into one's own hands (in one slightly unusual case I was embarrassed when LHO male chauvinist pig was repeatedly rude to RHO error-prone wife; my summoning of the TD actually saw LHO -- who is normally* a wonderful guy -- realise that he had in this case overstepped the mark, apologise to all three of his opponents, and shut up). And apologies to Nigel Guthrie and Herman De Wael if any of my recent postings on our philosophical differences have overstepped the mark into unnecessary rudeness. 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 Feb 9 03:41:05 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 02:41:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Handling of §12.C.1 and §12.C.2 References: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <52235A09D75144C5BEA3E3213710CA3A@JOHN> I think you can do what you like here. A player absenting himself from the table is subject to pretty tough penalty in any event. I assess a 20% fine and award the most fsvourable result at all likely result to the NO's. In other words if the 6NT requires even 2 finesses and hasn't been started I still award it. John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" To: Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:35 PM Subject: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 Hi, we had discussion lately on when to apply ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 and I would like you to help me on this. Lets assume the following case: During a board, East and South get into a quarrel regarding behaviour at the table. East jumps up, leaves table and refuses to play the board. The bidding was: N O S W 1NT p 6NT There are 12 tricks - for a top score. Setting apart the question on how to penalise East (quarter, behead, reprimand), how should the board been scored: a) if the quarrel occurs after 6NT but before the bidding is done b) if there are a number of tricks (1-10) played before East leaves the table c) if there are 11 tricks played before the game is interrupted Does is matter for your decision whether the 12 tricks are from the top, depend on good play or a subject to a 50/50 guess? Best regards Christian _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Feb 9 03:55:14 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 21:55:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> This just keeps getting weirder. Herman De Wael wrote: > Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> I said I wasn't going to continue the discussion but shall violate that >> promise. >> >> I doubt that your command of English is better than mine ("high") but >> that isn't terribly relative. It is unimportant if we say "high" or >> "good" or "a winner" or whatever. The meaning is clear to all. >> Questioning the usage of "high" is grasping a straw and a diversion, not >> relevant. >> >> > > See my post somewhere else: You are absolutely right in calling high > trumps the same as high side-suits. But you are wrong in deducing that > this means there is no difference. There are at least two differences: > 1) they are trumps and can be used to get back in > If a player is on lead, and has two cards that are winners with two tricks to go, why on earth would he need to preserve an entry? > 2) there are no outstanding cards of the "free" trump suit. > Huh? What's a "free" trump suit. At this point in the hand, it might as well be no trump. Declarer has two winners with two tricks remaining (or at least that's what he believes). He's not going to trump anything. He's not going to pull trump. He simply claimed two tricks. He was wrong. Apply L70C, D and E. The least favorable normal line of play costs Declarer two tricks, so that's the ruling. Make the ruling and move on. > You are right in saying trumps are just as "high" as side suits. > But I am also right in saying trumps are better than "high", they are > "free" (and trumps!) > > And so if you criticise me for saying that there is a difference between > trumps and side suits, then you are wrong (in criticising me). > > >> I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade >> and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase >> anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", >> "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are >> discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is >> a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a >> general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) >> >> > > No, these words are not the same. "high" means there are no higher cards > outstanding. "free" (indeed a better word than "last") means there are > no cards outstanding. To say that they have the same meaning is simply > wrong. > > OK, so that's what you meant by "free". I've never heard that term used in reference to a good trump. The term is also completely irrelevant. Declarer believed his hand was good, but a defender held a high trump. Once Declarer claims both tricks, he cannot force the Defender's trump to promote his own. It's an unstated line of play, and there is a normal, if careless, line of play that is less successful (leading the trump). L70D1. >> Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and >> waste of time. >> > > I was giving an actual example from real life - that cannot be a waste > of time. > This entire thread is a waste of time. The original ruling was a simple book ruling that the TD got right. Days of posts claiming otherwise simply chew up bandwidth, and make a mockery of a forum that is supposed to be a serious discussion of bridge law. [remainder snipped, as I've already quoted more than enough useless text] Hirsch From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 9 04:07:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:07:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] a question [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <498C0BBE.40504@jldata.fi> Message-ID: Richard Hills, Australia: >>Declarer says, "Play anything," and dummy flashily discards the >>queen of hearts. Or, as declarers often do, declarer could >>flashily say, "Discard the queen of hearts - I do not need it." >> >>Given that declarer thinks dummy's cards are equally worthless, >>it cannot be abnormal* for declarer to discard the highest >>ranking one. Juuso Leikola, Finland: >I think this goes too far. Perhaps discarding HQ is not abnormal, >but goes out of wording "any doubtful point against claimer" in >the context. Even, that could, once in 1000(0) could happen. Richard Hills, Tasmania (dual citizen): One in 10000 times? More like one in 10 times Down Under. In Tasmanian and also in Australian tournaments I have seen both declarers and defenders be unnecessarily flashy in their discards. Once, in an Australian Individual Championship, as a defender I discarded the ace of diamonds to subtly suggest to my partner (top- class Queensland expert Tony Jackman) that I might hold the king of diamonds. Tony acknowledged my subtle signal with a salute, then he deduced the killing switch to diamonds, thus causing me to narrowly win the event. John Morley, Life of Gladstone (1903): "Simplicity of character is no hindrance to subtlety of intellect." Richard Hills, Canberra (triple citizen): The classic signal via a flashy ace discard was performed by the second-best American expert of the 1950s, Howard Schenken. He was sitting over dummy's king with an ace, his partner won a trick in a suit in which Howard was void, thus Howard had to find a discard. So Howard discarded the ace. Howard had counted out the deal, knew that his ace was worthless opposite declarer's hidden void, therefore now -- with the ace gone -- Howard's partner had no alternative to the winning defence, giving Howard a ruff. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 08:44:36 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 08:44:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: <009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be> <009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498FDEE4.4020001@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >>> I agree with Eric wholeheartedly. Herman implements the well known > trick - >>> when he's losing the debate, he starts to use arguments of the "and in > your >>> country they beat Jews" kind. I was accused of "Herman-bashing" and > "Maciej >>> is right because he is Maciej" in spite of the fact that I patiently >>> responded to all Herman's arguments and didn't attack him at all. >> Yes Maciej, you patiently responded by an argument that boiled down to >> "we're right because we're in the majority". > > Let's see: > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045395.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045426.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type, BLML contributors' opinions used > only as a proof that for some group of players cashing trumps first is > "normal" > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045371.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045468.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045501.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045506.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type, even contains "The majority is not > always right" statement. > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045466.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045507.html - no > argument of a "majority is right" type > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045461.html - one > argument of a "majority is right" type, about 5% of the whole argumentation > in this contribution > > As you can see there was only one argument which bordered on "majority is > right" in 9 of my contributions full of other arguments. So your statement > is clearly false. You have an occasion to prove that you are able to admit > to being wrong. Would you take it? > I would, if it were. Let's take the history of my statement. You wrote that I had not replied to one of your messages. So I said that indeed I had not, because I felt it was of the "majority is right argument". Now I may have been wrong in that one. It may have been another one of your messages I have been thinking of. You have just admitted that at least once you used an argument of this kind. The point is that my message was only a response to your question as to why I did not respond to one of your posts. While I feel under no obligation to answer any message at all, when people start to question the reasons, I shall give one of them. So no, Maciej, I shall nt admit I am wrong in what I wrote above. You have given me absolutely no reason why. You admit yourself that what I wrote may well have been right. And what is the importance of this quibble in the large scheme of claim rulings. Do you admit, Maciej, that the "majority is right" argument is a faulty one? Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 09:04:08 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:04:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: <009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be> <009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <498FE378.7060508@skynet.be> OK Maciej, I'll try once again. Bystry wrote: > > I'll leave the absurdity of your statement aside. I will only remind you of > one counter-argument which you certainly did receive, from many > contributors. Indeed I did. And I accept the argument, if you'll also accept its conclusion. > For us playing the remaining sure winners in any random order > is fully "normal", because any such order results in exactly the same > outcome - taking all the tricks. OK. That is your opinion. In my opinion, playing the sure winners in one particular order (trumps first) is not "normal", because that particular order produces less tricks than the other ones, in case of any mistake. It does not matter which mistake the claimer has made (if he cashes his trump and then loses a card which he wrongly believed was high he's also lots off, since he can no longer get in with the trump), he'll always lose more than the one trick his mistake has cost him. For that reason, playing trumps last is a "normal" safeguard, which is ingrained in any player, just like playing top-down is. > That's what the claimer intends, that's > what he gets in over 99% of cases. Making safe plays to protect themselves > against, say, 0,005% possibility of an error does not even cross their > minds. That's true - but it's unimportant, since the habit of keeping trumps till last is "ingrained". In my opinion. > If it did, they would simply say something like "trumps last". It is > very rare because those claimers are subjectivly *100% sure* that there was > no forget or miscount. > No Maciej, we are talking about people who are 99% certain, because there is no such thing as being 100% certain. They know they sometimes make a mistake, and they don't care about it. >> I have never stated that mine is the only possible correct ruling in >> this claim. I have constantly argued that we need more guidance. You >> have tried to prove that my ruling is against the law, and I have always >> countered your arguments. You have never rescinded even one of the >> arguments held out against me. > > Show me where did I state that your ruling is against the law. I clearly > stated that in my opinion EBL AC wanted to give a particular ruling, > searched for lawful support and found it by applying totally wrong > judgement. Wrong judgment? Please Maciej, I am being patient here. You say "in my opinion", and I say "in my opinion". In Tenerife, 4 peole gave "their opinion", and that opinion coincided. Yet you, here, say "totally wrong". That is the majority argument, or even worse, that is the "Maciej is right" argument. Please realize that you have no arguments here to say "totally wrong". > That's what it is all about - judging what is "normal" and what > is not. EBL AC could decide that for them playing Ax - Kx other than > dropping K under A is "not normal". Such decision would be of course silly, > idiotic, totally wrong, but would not be a decision against the laws. > OK, now we're down to silly and idiotic. > So once again you wrongly accuse me of something improper (accusing you of > supporting illegal use of the laws). > Ehm, when did I say you said that? Eric said that, once. >> People have stated the biggest lunacies in this thread, like the fact >> that there is no difference between free trumps and high side-suiters. > > Nobody stated anything like that. Ehm - do you wish me to gather a list like the one above? I may be wrong in saying it was you, but I believe it was a post of yours this first appeared in. When I pointed out this was clearly wrong (after Alain told me a square is also a rectangle), Jeff confirmed once again that all rectangles are the same. That was the post I replied to, saying that I thought Jeff was cleverer, to which he felt offended and I apologised. But very clearly the above was stated a few times, and I still maintain it is a lunacy. Moonshine, as you put it in another reference to our dear satelite. > There are many positions in which this > difference is significant (e.g. when there are still side suits to be > established). *But not* in the case of only remaining sure winners. Then > there is no difference because the special function of trumps ceased to > exist - you don't have to ruff anything anymore. > Except when you happen to be mistaken, which is always a remote possibility. Face it, Maciej, there are two opinions in this, and there is nothing in the laws which will say which one of the two should guide our rulings. Something which, incidentally, I have always maintained. I have never attacked your opinion as being wrong, I have just tried to point out why the arguments you (and others) have put out against my opinion, are wrong (IMO). >> This ought to be self-evident, but when I wrote that I thought someone >> had more sense than that, I was accused of bad language. > > Not by me. I try to refrain myself from commenting on anyone's language, my > own is not good enough. > >> I wanted to stop this thread, after Henk's post. Not because I suddenly >> thought you guys were right, but because I realised you were not going >> to agree to anything I said, however logical it was. > > That works in both ways. And it is offensive to all the "guys", I'm certain > that many of us admitted to being wrong many times in our lives. > As I have. >> I shall not however, stop posting if you continue to hound me. >> I regard this post as severely critical and over the top. > > You have a right to judge it as such. I regard your earlier accusations > unfounded and offensive, but I'm not going to whine and force artificial > apologies. > >> I would wish that some sensible people would join me in calling Maciej >> to reason for this post of his. > > And I wish you get to understand that some of your contributions are > regarded as irritating or offensive by other BLMLers. And that if I > criticize your discussing style, it is not to "gain a point" or to bash you. > It is to make our hypothetical future discussions more pleasant for *both* > sides. I'm not a kind of person who blacklists anybody because I dislike > something in his postings. I still wish to comment on his substantive > arguments, that's what BLML is for - presenting the views about the laws. > I accept your call one substantive arguments. Many of your posts have been very pleasant to discuss to. Herman. From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 9 09:15:22 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:15:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: <498FDEE4.4020001@skynet.be> References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net> <002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be> <009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> <498FDEE4.4020001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <200902090815.n198FNWi004046@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> > Herman says: >Do you admit, Maciej, that the "majority is right" argument is a faulty one? Might even be a straw man argument. The majority of some countries are in favour of capital punishment. QED. However, Herman has been responsible during the dWS days of continuing an argument where he was clearly in the minority, & clearly wrong (according to the official interpretation of the Law). He is also clearly wrong in his discussion over 10 years of the Little Herman 1H, and still fails to admit it. I think Herman simply enjoys a good argument, and could quite easily take either side, however for learning about the Law, he is off my list of gurus Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >Herman. > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 09:19:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:19:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> Message-ID: <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> Hirsch Davis wrote: > > If a player is on lead, and has two cards that are winners with two > tricks to go, why on earth would he need to preserve an entry? > Pure and simple logic. You have in your hand: the seven of spades, which is trumps, and the jack of hearts. You believe the jack of hearts to be high, and there are to be no more trumps out. You also know that you have been, in the past 30 years, wrong on such things about 30 times (or in my case, 300, or, in yours, 3). Which card do you play first? If you are right this time, it does not matter, that's true. But if you are wrong? There are three ways in which you can be wrong. There may be the QH out, or the S9, or the S6. When it is the S6, then you would be right in playing the S7 first. But, OTOH, if it is either of the other two - playing the S7 first will cost you two tricks (unless you are lucky and the holder of the S9 has a small heart as well). So pure logic will tell you that playing the trump last is beneficial. And my point is not that a player will think of this before playing. Every player, in the beginning of his career, has learnt this trick of keeping trumps till last. Just look at the face of a beginner when he draws a round too much of trumps - oh, I spilled one! >> 2) there are no outstanding cards of the "free" trump suit. >> > Huh? What's a "free" trump suit. I have tried to get the wording right for a long time now. I have used "last", "alone" and now "free". I think you know what I mean. > At this point in the hand, it might > as well be no trump. Declarer has two winners with two tricks remaining > (or at least that's what he believes). He's not going to trump > anything. He's not going to pull trump. He simply claimed two tricks. Well, as I've often stated, that is not how a player thinks. He does not think "ah, opponent's trumps have gone, we're now playing NT". He keeps his trumps just in case, and he'll keep them as long as he's playing. And, IMO, he'll keep them also in the first tricks after he's stopped playing and claims. But that is my opinion, yours differs. > He was wrong. Yes he was. > Apply L70C, D and E. The least favorable normal line of > play costs Declarer two tricks, so that's the ruling. Make the ruling > and move on. > NO! IMO, playing trumps first is not a normal line of play. So I make the ruling. 1 trick each. >> You are right in saying trumps are just as "high" as side suits. >> But I am also right in saying trumps are better than "high", they are >> "free" (and trumps!) >> >> And so if you criticise me for saying that there is a difference between >> trumps and side suits, then you are wrong (in criticising me). >> >> >>> I shall rephrase nothing, it is only a diversion. He has a high spade >>> and (he believes) the last trump. No need to change or rephrase >>> anything, and irrelevant if we call the trump (in his belief) "high", >>> "good" or "last". They all have the same meaning in the case we are >>> discussing and changing the subject, trying to construct other cases is >>> a waste of time and irrelevant in dealing with this case. (Not as a >>> general exercise, even when it is a general exercise in futility.) >>> >>> >> No, these words are not the same. "high" means there are no higher cards >> outstanding. "free" (indeed a better word than "last") means there are >> no cards outstanding. To say that they have the same meaning is simply >> wrong. >> >> > > OK, so that's what you meant by "free". I've never heard that term used > in reference to a good trump. No, I had to invent a word. I thought the meaning was clear by now. > The term is also completely irrelevant. 888888888888888 (expletives deleted) > Declarer believed his hand was good, but a defender held a high trump. > Once Declarer claims both tricks, he cannot force the Defender's trump > to promote his own. It's an unstated line of play, and there is a > normal, if careless, line of play that is less successful (leading the > trump). L70D1. NO. That line is not normal. Why do you state again that which has been denied by me for twoo weeks now? > >>> Dummy held another trump in the example you gave: another diversion and >>> waste of time. >>> >> I was giving an actual example from real life - that cannot be a waste >> of time. >> > This entire thread is a waste of time. The original ruling was a simple > book ruling that the TD got right. Days of posts claiming otherwise > simply chew up bandwidth, and make a mockery of a forum that is supposed > to be a serious discussion of bridge law. > No, your post here make a mockery of this forum. Your argument is "I'm right and they're wrong and there is no discussion about that". Very arrogant and a far greater waste of bandwith, and of my time. I'm sorry I started answering this. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 10:20:46 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:20:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Pure and simple logic. > > You have in your hand: the seven of spades, which is trumps, and the > jack of hearts. You believe the jack of hearts to be high, and there are > to be no more trumps out. You also know that you have been, in the past > 30 years, wrong on such things about 30 times (or in my case, 300, or, > in yours, 3). Which card do you play first? > If you are right this time, it does not matter, that's true. > But if you are wrong? There are three ways in which you can be wrong. > There may be the QH out, or the S9, or the S6. > When it is the S6, then you would be right in playing the S7 first. But, > OTOH, if it is either of the other two - playing the S7 first will cost > you two tricks (unless you are lucky and the holder of the S9 has a > small heart as well). > > So pure logic will tell you that playing the trump last is beneficial. Except that at each of the last 30 times I was wrong I had forgotten the S6 still out. So certainly I automatically play my "high" trump first in case this should happen to be the 31st time I had miscounted my trumps the same way. Honestly Herman: Your "pure and simple logic" just doesn't hold. You had better adhere to the laws than inventing new understandings. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 10:45:15 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:45:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> Message-ID: <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >> Pure and simple logic. >> >> You have in your hand: the seven of spades, which is trumps, and the >> jack of hearts. You believe the jack of hearts to be high, and there are >> to be no more trumps out. You also know that you have been, in the past >> 30 years, wrong on such things about 30 times (or in my case, 300, or, >> in yours, 3). Which card do you play first? >> If you are right this time, it does not matter, that's true. >> But if you are wrong? There are three ways in which you can be wrong. >> There may be the QH out, or the S9, or the S6. >> When it is the S6, then you would be right in playing the S7 first. But, >> OTOH, if it is either of the other two - playing the S7 first will cost >> you two tricks (unless you are lucky and the holder of the S9 has a >> small heart as well). >> >> So pure logic will tell you that playing the trump last is beneficial. > > Except that at each of the last 30 times I was wrong I had forgotten the S6 > still out. > > So certainly I automatically play my "high" trump first in case this should > happen to be the 31st time I had miscounted my trumps the same way. > > Honestly Herman: Your "pure and simple logic" just doesn't hold. You had > better adhere to the laws than inventing new understandings. > Sven, how often do I have to repeat this? The LAWS say nothing about this matter. The laws only talk of normal lines, and we are here to decide which is normal and which is not. Upon which our opinions differ. Herman. From henk at ripe.net Mon Feb 9 11:03:26 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:03:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <498FFF6E.7050905@ripe.net> Herman, Offline. > Sven, how often do I have to repeat this? Als iemand iets niet begrijpt, dan is herhalen niet de methode om hem dat wel te laten doen. > Upon which our opinions differ. Ik zou het hierbij laten 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 svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 11:16:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:16:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c98a9f$8b6e8900$a24b9b00$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > > Honestly Herman: Your "pure and simple logic" just doesn't hold. You had > > better adhere to the laws than inventing new understandings. > > > > Sven, how often do I have to repeat this? > The LAWS say nothing about this matter. > The laws only talk of normal lines, and we are here to decide which is > normal and which is not. > > Upon which our opinions differ. And you continue inventing "new understandings". I haven't noticed a single agreement to your "understanding" that "trump first" is not one of the "normal" lines of play when all your cards are high. We all agree that "trump first" can sometimes be "careless" (as can be "trump last"), but according to law this is still "normal". To repeat myself: Your "pure and simple logic" to the contrary just doesn't hold. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 13:17:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:17:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001901c98a9f$8b6e8900$a24b9b00$@no> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> <001901c98a9f$8b6e8900$a24b9b00$@no> Message-ID: <49901ECA.8010009@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > >>> Honestly Herman: Your "pure and simple logic" just doesn't hold. You had >>> better adhere to the laws than inventing new understandings. >>> >> Sven, how often do I have to repeat this? >> The LAWS say nothing about this matter. >> The laws only talk of normal lines, and we are here to decide which is >> normal and which is not. >> >> Upon which our opinions differ. > > And you continue inventing "new understandings". > There is nothing new about a principle which was used by the EBL AC in 2001! > I haven't noticed a single agreement to your "understanding" that "trump > first" is not one of the "normal" lines of play when all your cards are > high. > But why should I agree with something that I tell you I disagree with? > We all agree that "trump first" can sometimes be "careless" (as can be > "trump last"), but according to law this is still "normal". > NO, YOU all agree with that - I don't. I may agree to the fact that it would be careless - but the footnote says that "normal" includes careless, but it says nothing about lines that "are never played". Which is what I believe this line is. Nobody plays it that way. It's like top-down. Nobody plays a suit (when cashing it) bottom-up. Unless they do so with a smile, or because they want to keep the D7 till last. Top-down is an acccepted principle within claim adjustment (well, maybe not universally so, but many people will accept it); yet there is nothing irrational about it. It is just something which "is always done". In that sense, it is called "normal", and bottom-up is deemed not "normal". Yet there is nothing in the laws to say that it must per force be normal. These things can be accepted as "normal". All we need is a universal pronouncement on how we should deal with this. And there is nothing wrong with universally deciding that "trumps first" is not normal. Most players will feel this natural and true. Every single player, both claimer and claimee, will accept a ruling on this principle. And there is nothing educational about giving away three tricks, since the claimer did nothing against any law. It is not up to the Director to punish players for bad plays. > To repeat myself: Your "pure and simple logic" to the contrary just doesn't > hold. > My pure and simple logic is pure and simple. It is better to play trumps last. If you wish to contradict this, you are deluded. Yes, your argument is that it would be merely careless to play otherwise, but that changes nothing to my argument - that is a different argument of yours - and I have given my response to that one above. > Sven > Herman. From henk at ripe.net Mon Feb 9 13:43:54 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:43:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49901ECA.8010009@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> <000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> <001901c98a9f$8b6e8900$a24b9b00$@no> <49901ECA.8010009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4990250A.8000108@ripe.net> Herman, >>> Sven, how often do I have to repeat this? Earlier, I told you privately that repeating ones opinion over and over again, will not help to convince somebody else. I also asked you to stop this discussion as >>> Upon which our opinions differ. you and Sven seem to agree that you disagree without getting any further. So, please stop this discussion. In order to enforce this, I've put you on probation. All your postings will go past the moderator from now on. Postings that do not contibute to the discussion will be rejected. Everybody else: note that this will happen to you as well if you continue this discussion. Henk -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net RIPE Network Coordination Centre http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 9 15:29:01 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:29:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl><498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be><009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl><498FDEE4.4020001@skynet.be> <200902090815.n198FNWi004046@mail04.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <3B0946968FC443048514D2D4342AE904@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:15 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The best of Richard bashing > >> > > Herman says: > >>Do you admit, Maciej, that the "majority is right" argument is a faulty >>one? > > Might even be a straw man argument. The majority of some countries > are in favour of capital punishment. QED. > > However, Herman has been responsible during the dWS days of continuing > an argument where he was clearly in the minority, & clearly wrong > (according > to the official interpretation of the Law). He is also clearly wrong in > his > discussion over 10 years of the Little Herman 1H, and still fails to admit > it. I think Herman simply enjoys a good argument, and could quite > easily take either side, however for learning about the Law, he is off > my list of gurus I think that's a mistake. Once you've spotted his peccadilloes, Herman's good value. John > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > > > > > > > > > > >>Herman. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>blml mailing list >>blml at amsterdamned.org >>http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 9 15:35:28 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 14:35:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> Message-ID: <3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] a question > Hirsch Davis wrote: >> >> If a player is on lead, and has two cards that are winners with two >> tricks to go, why on earth would he need to preserve an entry? >> > > Pure and simple logic. > > You have in your hand: the seven of spades, which is trumps, and the > jack of hearts. You believe the jack of hearts to be high, and there are > to be no more trumps out. You also know that you have been, in the past > 30 years, wrong on such things about 30 times (or in my case, 300, or, > in yours, 3). Which card do you play first? > If you are right this time, it does not matter, that's true. > But if you are wrong? There are three ways in which you can be wrong. > There may be the QH out, or the S9, or the S6. > When it is the S6, then you would be right in playing the S7 first. But, > OTOH, if it is either of the other two - playing the S7 first will cost > you two tricks (unless you are lucky and the holder of the S9 has a > small heart as well). > > So pure logic will tell you that playing the trump last is beneficial. The Probst cheat has just invented a new game. He has a 2 card ending with a trump and a card. I'm fairly sure there are no trumps left, but I've been wrong before, and when he is it's usually a big one (that I finessed, drew one more round and it didn't fall is my usual action to get there). I'd like to draw one more round just in case but it is dangerous. The game is: Should I call TD Herman? What is the saddle point in terms of my certainty for this action ? C'mon Herman, you can't let my cheating prosper. john From daves1510 at gmail.com Mon Feb 9 16:09:46 2009 From: daves1510 at gmail.com (Dave seagull) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:09:46 -0500 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: >> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sven, how often do I have to repeat this? > The LAWS say nothing about this matter. > The laws only talk of normal lines, and we are here to decide which is > normal and which is not. > > Upon which our opinions differ. > > Herman. It's very simple Herman: Do you agree with the following: a "Normal line" is a line that at least some players of the same caliber will seriously consider and of those some minority will actually choose. If you agree than clearly this (way too long) thread proved that many BLMRs of various calibers will all at least seriously consider playing the trump first and some of them (Sven for example) would actually choose, Hence, playing the trump first is a "Normal" line (Except maybe for Herman who never play trumps first). From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 9 16:18:07 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:18:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? Message-ID: I think it does. Does anyone disagree? Agree? Meaning 1: What is THE normal way to play this trump suit? AJxx Kxxx The normal way is to play the king first and then, if no one has yet shown out, finesse the jack. I don't think this is what the laws intended and I don't think clarification is needed. Because... Meaning 2: What are the normal ways of playing this trump suit. Is not-finessing a normal way? I sometimes play A and then K. So I rate this as a normal line of play and one of the normal plays. In English, switching to the plural, or changing "the" to "a", changes "normal" to this meaning. The laws use "an" and "any" (which implies plural). But... in a 12-card fit missing the king, there is only one normal line of play -- unless they miscount or miscalculate, everyone plays the ace. So if declarer concedes down one (with no losers outside this suit), without saying how he will play the trump suit, the concession would be cancelled using this definition. ("The director shall cancel a concession if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining card.") Meaning 3: What are the normal lines of play given claimant's awareness of the hand and apparent intention? If a player concedes a trick to the offside king in a 12-card fit, then he has apparently miscounted the suit and thinks it is Kx offside. Then, playing the queen first becomes a normal line of play. Meaning 3 is presumably what the authors intended and all or almost all directors use. WHY THIS NEEDS CLARIFICATION 1. As near as I can see, AC's occasionally rule using the second definition. I think this is reason enough, but 2. As near as I can see, the law never says that "normal" should be defined in terms of the claimant's apparent awareness and intent. The default hence is that they are not relevant. In other words, I think meaning 2 is a straightforward reading of the laws. I will add that "normal" is an awkward word to use if meaning 3 is intended. and, still dropping in importance, but... 3. I honestly don't know if the player's level expertise is or should be taken into account when constructing "normal". Sorry if this is repetitive, but I wanted to be clear. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 16:53:45 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 16:53:45 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be> <498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><000901c98a97$b0f0ddc0$12d29940$@no> <498FFB2B.3070203@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c98ace$971435f0$c53ca1d0$@no> On Behalf Of Dave seagull .............. > Do you agree with the following: a "Normal line" is a line that at least > some players of the same caliber will seriously consider and of those some > minority will actually choose. > If you agree than clearly this (way too long) thread proved that many BLMRs > of various calibers will all at least seriously consider playing the trump > first and some of them (Sven* for example) would actually choose, Hence, > playing the trump first is a "Normal" line (Except maybe for Herman who > never play trumps first). * If I seriously "knew" that my trump was the highest also in the unlikely but possible case that I had miscounted the trumps then of course I would play even my last trump first! Regards Sven PS.: Notice also John(MadDog) Probst's wonderful example of The Probst Cheat! PPS; I hope Henk will accept this post from me even after I promised to end my contributions to this thread. From blml at bridgescore.de Mon Feb 9 17:53:18 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:53:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Handling_of_=A712=2EC=2E1_and_=A712=2EC=2E?= =?iso-8859-15?q?2?= In-Reply-To: <52235A09D75144C5BEA3E3213710CA3A@JOHN> References: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de> <52235A09D75144C5BEA3E3213710CA3A@JOHN> Message-ID: <49905F7E.5000501@bridgescore.de> Hi John, the question occurs whether a table score is a prerequisite to apply ?12.C.1. It says: "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces *the *score *obtained *in *play." (emphasis mine). ?12.C.2 says "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (...)" - if this would be applicable, the TD could only award average plus. Regards, Christian John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > I think you can do what you like here. A player absenting himself from the > table is subject to pretty tough penalty in any event. I assess a 20% fine > and award the most fsvourable result at all likely result to the NO's. In > other words if the 6NT requires even 2 finesses and hasn't been started I > still award it. John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:35 PM > Subject: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 > > > Hi, > > we had discussion lately on when to apply ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 and I > would like you to help me on this. > > Lets assume the following case: > During a board, East and South get into a quarrel regarding behaviour at > the table. East jumps up, leaves table and refuses to play the board. > The bidding was: > > N O S W > 1NT p 6NT > There are 12 tricks - for a top score. > > Setting apart the question on how to penalise East (quarter, behead, > reprimand), how should the board been scored: > > a) if the quarrel occurs after 6NT but before the bidding is done > b) if there are a number of tricks (1-10) played before East leaves the > table > c) if there are 11 tricks played before the game is interrupted > > Does is matter for your decision whether the 12 tricks are from the top, > depend on good play or a subject to a 50/50 guess? > > Best regards > > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 9 18:29:00 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:29:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be><009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> <498FDEE4.4020001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002501c98adb$e57830e0$15844c59@chello.pl> At start I want to say that I will respect Henk's wish and won't write anything about the case. Just some points regarding the style of discussion. > Bystry wrote: > >>> I agree with Eric wholeheartedly. Herman implements the well known > > trick - > >>> when he's losing the debate, he starts to use arguments of the "and in > > your > >>> country they beat Jews" kind. I was accused of "Herman-bashing" and > > "Maciej > >>> is right because he is Maciej" in spite of the fact that I patiently > >>> responded to all Herman's arguments and didn't attack him at all. > >> Yes Maciej, you patiently responded by an argument that boiled down to > >> "we're right because we're in the majority". > > > > Let's see: > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045395.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045426.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type, BLML contributors' opinions used > > only as a proof that for some group of players cashing trumps first is > > "normal" > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045371.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045468.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045501.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045506.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type, even contains "The majority is not > > always right" statement. > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045466.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045507.html - no > > argument of a "majority is right" type > > > > http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2009-February/045461.html - one > > argument of a "majority is right" type, about 5% of the whole argumentation > > in this contribution > > > > As you can see there was only one argument which bordered on "majority is > > right" in 9 of my contributions full of other arguments. So your statement > > is clearly false. You have an occasion to prove that you are able to admit > > to being wrong. Would you take it? > > > > I would, if it were. > Let's take the history of my statement. > You wrote that I had not replied to one of your messages. > So I said that indeed I had not, because I felt it was of the "majority > is right argument". It just stroke me that you simply have troubles with memory and that is a reason of your unfounded assumptions and accusations. You simply don't bother to check the past emails and write from memory, which is frequently fallible. Yes, I wrote that you hadn't responded to one of my messages, but your statement > >> Yes Maciej, you patiently responded by an argument that boiled down to > >> "we're right because we're in the majority". was not a response to that part of my posting. It was a response to > >>> I was accused of "Herman-bashing" and "Maciej > >>> is right because he is Maciej" in spite of the fact that I patiently > >>> responded to all Herman's arguments and didn't attack him at all. To the part of my posting concerning not answering an email you simply responded that you try to reduce the number of your contributions. As to the lack of merit of your statement: > Now I may have been wrong in that one. It may have been another one of > your messages I have been thinking of. You have just admitted that at > least once you used an argument of this kind. First, do not use dirty tricks - I admitted that there was *only one*, not *at least one*, argument that *bordered* on "majority is right". It was a single argument among the 50 or so substantive arguments (and regarding the whole text it took 1/1000 or so). I'll quote it: [Me] Your opinion is till now against all the other contributors' opinions. Doesn't it make you at least uncomfortable? Wouldn't it be rational to think about it again? Ignore David and me, but Eric, Jack, Bob, Robert, Alain, Richard, John, Tony or Jeff (I exclude Sven because he is harsh on claims) are not enemies of "equity" approach. Despite that they all want to give 2 tricks to the defenders. [/Me] As you can see I didn't write that we are right because we are the majority. My statement points out one important thing - if you find yourself against all (or nearly) all discutants, who have at least a reasonable knowledge about the topic, it is wise and rational to stop and thoroughly think about your own position again. It may easily happen that you will still maintain your opinion and you will be right. But having the majority against you is a kind of warning - something is not ok if people of similar knowledge and intelligence strongly disagree with you, especially if the topic is about something extreme (irrationality), not about something of the unclear, middle-of-the-road type. That kind of warning is very useful, I know it from my experience. If I have a group of supporters (i.e. people sharing my views) against another group of people of different opinion, I have no real incentive to rethink my position. I may stand by my first impression, simply acknowledging that the topic must be controversial and there is no one, clear, conclusion. But if I'm really alone (or in a tiny minority) I have a tendency to give myself some time, rethink the topic and come back to it in the near future. I simply know that humans are not machines, we sometimes lose contact with reality, overlook some important points, have blackouts etc. > The point is that my message was only a response to your question as to > why I did not respond to one of your posts. It wasn't, as I have proven above. > While I feel under no obligation to answer any message at all, when > people start to question the reasons, I shall give one of them. Of course you have no obligation to answer. But then you have no right to say "you didn't present any arguments/counter-arguments" or something similar, while those omitted emails contained arguments/counter-arguments. > So no, Maciej, I shall nt admit I am wrong in what I wrote above. > You have given me absolutely no reason why. I'm not surprised. I know the kind of people to which you clearly belong - having grave difficulty to admit to being wrong. I wonder how will you twist something now, as I have refuted your false statements that you were responding to a completely different part of my email. > You admit yourself that what I wrote may well have been right. I didn't admit anything like that. What you wrote was completely false, or rather absurd. The (il)logic of your statement is - if somebody presents 50 arguments from which 49 are substantive and one is marginally of the "majority is right type", then this person's arguments boil down to this single argument, he is "bashing" his interlocutor and he has an overgrown ego thinking along the line "I'm right because I'm right". If we were to follow your (il)logic, you are right. We are all guilty of "Herman-bashing". But at the same time we are guilty of "everyone-bashing" and *you* are guilty of "everyone-bashing". > And what is the importance of this quibble in the large scheme of claim > rulings. In my opinion it is important, because it shows that with the actual state of the claim laws there is no hope to achieve consistent rulings. This whole discussion shows how wise David Burn was when he wrote some years ago that without applying his rules (or rules close to them) there would always be inconstistencies and disagreements. If we don't want to apply David's rules, we have to define "normal" much better than it is now. It will not fully solve the problems, but it will reduce them. And it will reduce the chance that in the future X will become the World Champion because he gets Grattan, You and Jens in an AC deciding about his misclaim, and Y will come second because he gets David, John and Sven, on exactly the same type of problem. > Do you admit, Maciej, that the "majority is right" argument is a faulty one? Of course. But everyone here on BLML is surely guilty of using faulty arguments. But they are usually rare and shouldn't be used to refute all the remaining substantive arguments, which you exactly tried to do. > Herman. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 9 13:21:42 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:21:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias In-Reply-To: <08DC87E471EA413D8B78B0D0603716B5@JOHN> References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C6AB1.9030002@talktalk.net> <08DC87E471EA413D8B78B0D0603716B5@JOHN> Message-ID: <49901FD6.8010800@talktalk.net> [John (MadDog) Probst] This is arrant bullshit. [Nigel] John and I agree to differ :) again :) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Feb 9 19:00:05 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 10:00:05 -0800 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Handling_of_=A712=2EC=2E1_and_=A712=2EC=2E?= =?iso-8859-15?q?2?= References: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de><52235A09D75144C5BEA3E3213710CA3A@JOHN> <49905F7E.5000501@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <4A336D6A9CAB473B897F8F8C797F99CE@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" Hi John, the question occurs whether a table score is a prerequisite to apply ?12.C.1. It says: "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces *the *score *obtained *in *play." (emphasis mine). ?12.C.2 says "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (...)" - if this would be applicable, the TD could only award average plus. WBFLC minutes of 10 October 2008 say that "if a board is incomplete but has reached a stage when completion of the board can be foreseen an assigned score is appropriate." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From darkbystry at wp.pl Mon Feb 9 19:17:20 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 19:17:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be><009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> <498FE378.7060508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003501c98ae2$a65685e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Again, I won't respond to anything concerning the claim case to respect Henk's wish. I will respond to Herman's arguments of this type privately. [snip] > > Show me where did I state that your ruling is against the law. I clearly > > stated that in my opinion EBL AC wanted to give a particular ruling, > > searched for lawful support and found it by applying totally wrong > > judgement. > > Wrong judgment? Please Maciej, I am being patient here. You say "in my > opinion", and I say "in my opinion". In Tenerife, 4 peole gave "their > opinion", and that opinion coincided. Yet you, here, say "totally > wrong". That is the majority argument, or even worse, that is the > "Maciej is right" argument. Moonshine. It has nothing in common with "majority". And it has nothing in common with "Maciej is right" argument. I supported my opinion (that the judgement was totally wrong) with references to logic, psychology, my own observations, opinions of bridge players. > Please realize that you have no arguments here to say "totally wrong". You are free to judge my arguments and accept them or not. But equally I'm free to judge others' arguments and draw my own conclusions. I also have a right to state my opinions about others' judgement and I did it, after thinking about it thoroughly, after reading hundreds of others' contributions (I read about EBL case much earlier than current topic appeared). > > So once again you wrongly accuse me of something improper (accusing you of > > supporting illegal use of the laws). > > > > Ehm, when did I say you said that? > Eric said that, once. [Herman, to me] > You have tried to prove that my ruling is against the law [/Herman] If I tried to prove that your ruling was against the law, knowing that you support that ruling, I would accuse you of supporting illegal use of the laws. So you accused me of doing exactly that, totally unfounded. My impression seems to be more and more right - when responding to others' contributions you are doing it from memory, so sometimes you don't remember whether e.g. Eric wrote something or me. I have an advise - if you want to accuse anyone about anything, check it thoroughly, think about it twice, prepare (or present) quotations and only then procede. > >> People have stated the biggest lunacies in this thread, like the fact > >> that there is no difference between free trumps and high side-suiters. > > > > Nobody stated anything like that. > > Ehm - do you wish me to gather a list like the one above? I may be wrong > in saying it was you, but I believe it was a post of yours this first > appeared in. When I pointed out this was clearly wrong (after Alain told > me a square is also a rectangle), Jeff confirmed once again that all > rectangles are the same. He didn't. He stated that as long as only the difference between rectangles and circles matters (as the difference between the winners and losers), we don't have to distinguish between squares and not squares (trumps and not trumps). > But very clearly the above was stated a few times, and I still maintain > it is a lunacy. Moonshine, as you put it in another reference to our > dear satelite. If you understood it that way, then of course it is lunacy. But in fact you simply failed to grasp Jeff's (and others') point. > Face it, Maciej, there are two opinions in this, and there is nothing in > the laws which will say which one of the two should guide our rulings. Yes, the laws do not define "normality" or "rationality". They should, as long as those notions do not bear their dictionary meanings. Maybe something close to LA definition, as somebody recently proposed? > Herman. Regards Maciej From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 9 19:35:30 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:35:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Handling of §12.C.1 and §12.C.2 References: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de><52235A09D75144C5BEA3E3213710CA3A@JOHN> <49905F7E.5000501@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: <07A1BB1BE4AB4F32A63F429B0A56AE4C@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:53 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 Hi John, the question occurs whether a table score is a prerequisite to apply ?12.C.1. I believe not. The obvious example is the "purposefully fouled" board in a teams match. When a board becomes fouled after an extraordinary result occurred the first time it was played and the losing side can be determined to have screwed it up (eg a 14-12, and I'm not even suggesting it's intentional) then we assign a score based on the likely outcome of the board at the other table. ... and this with the board not even played (it ain't the same deal any more even if it were played). This is necessary to ensure probst cheats can't prosper of course. What we can ALWAYS do is work out the likely result (in imps) and award that as a PP, so we get there in the end. john It says: "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces *the *score *obtained *in *play." (emphasis mine). ?12.C.2 says "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained (...)" - if this would be applicable, the TD could only award average plus. Regards, Christian John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > I think you can do what you like here. A player absenting himself from > the > table is subject to pretty tough penalty in any event. I assess a 20% fine > and award the most fsvourable result at all likely result to the NO's. In > other words if the 6NT requires even 2 finesses and hasn't been started I > still award it. John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:35 PM > Subject: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 > > > Hi, > > we had discussion lately on when to apply ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 and I > would like you to help me on this. > > Lets assume the following case: > During a board, East and South get into a quarrel regarding behaviour at > the table. East jumps up, leaves table and refuses to play the board. > The bidding was: > > N O S W > 1NT p 6NT > There are 12 tricks - for a top score. > > Setting apart the question on how to penalise East (quarter, behead, > reprimand), how should the board been scored: > > a) if the quarrel occurs after 6NT but before the bidding is done > b) if there are a number of tricks (1-10) played before East leaves the > table > c) if there are 11 tricks played before the game is interrupted > > Does is matter for your decision whether the 12 tricks are from the top, > depend on good play or a subject to a 50/50 guess? > > Best regards > > Christian > > _______________________________________________ > 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 john at asimere.com Mon Feb 9 19:38:47 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 18:38:47 -0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C6AB1.9030002@talktalk.net><08DC87E471EA413D8B78B0D0603716B5@JOHN> <49901FD6.8010800@talktalk.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 12:21 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Expert Bias > [John (MadDog) Probst] > This is arrant bullshit. > > [Nigel] > John and I agree to differ :) again :) > plus ca change :) peace Nigel, but I do think you're wrong. I am generally harsher on experts than beginners since it's self evident a beginner is incapable of using UI, just for example. I think that's true of many of peers too. John > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 9 13:39:22 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:39:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Expert Bias In-Reply-To: <001901c98885$44ff9c00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <498C26C8.7090808@talktalk.net><004101c9886f$729fea40$15844c59@chello.pl> <498C6AB1.9030002@talktalk.net> <001901c98885$44ff9c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499023FA.60507@talktalk.net> [Bystry] And how do you propose to measure "expertise"? There is always a possibility to find an approximate level of any bridge player. Usually the players now each other quite well, TDs have their own knowledge, one can analyse results, scores during the tournament, talk with the players. It would be extremerely rare to fail to get an approximation of anyone's bridge skill. [Nigel] I propose that the laws be framed, as far as possible, to *avoid* measuring expertise. If I were a director, I would find it demeaning to base a ruling on a subjective rating of the expertise of a stranger, friend or enemy. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Mon Feb 9 19:58:03 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:58:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing In-Reply-To: <003501c98ae2$a65685e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <19251AFB-911D-4EE9-97B0-00B54EA6DC10@starpower.net><002501c98887$c76ad680$15844c59@chello.pl> <498D5F17.7020404@skynet.be><009301c98a28$4ad70420$15844c59@chello.pl> <498FE378.7060508@skynet.be> <003501c98ae2$a65685e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49907CBB.2060606@aol.com> As far as I can recall (and I'm pretty certain) I never spoke of squares and rectangles or said that all rectangles are the same. So why does Herman say I did? JE Bystry schrieb: > Again, I won't respond to anything concerning the claim case to respect > Henk's wish. I will respond to Herman's arguments of this type privately. > > [snip] > >>> Show me where did I state that your ruling is against the law. I clearly >>> stated that in my opinion EBL AC wanted to give a particular ruling, >>> searched for lawful support and found it by applying totally wrong >>> judgement. >> Wrong judgment? Please Maciej, I am being patient here. You say "in my >> opinion", and I say "in my opinion". In Tenerife, 4 peole gave "their >> opinion", and that opinion coincided. Yet you, here, say "totally >> wrong". That is the majority argument, or even worse, that is the >> "Maciej is right" argument. > > Moonshine. It has nothing in common with "majority". And it has nothing in > common with "Maciej is right" argument. I supported my opinion (that the > judgement was totally wrong) with references to logic, psychology, my own > observations, opinions of bridge players. > >> Please realize that you have no arguments here to say "totally wrong". > > You are free to judge my arguments and accept them or not. But equally I'm > free to judge others' arguments and draw my own conclusions. I also have a > right to state my opinions about others' judgement and I did it, after > thinking about it thoroughly, after reading hundreds of others' > contributions (I read about EBL case much earlier than current topic > appeared). > >>> So once again you wrongly accuse me of something improper (accusing you > of >>> supporting illegal use of the laws). >>> >> Ehm, when did I say you said that? >> Eric said that, once. > > [Herman, to me] > >> You have tried to prove that my ruling is against the law > > [/Herman] > > If I tried to prove that your ruling was against the law, knowing that you > support that ruling, I would accuse you of supporting illegal use of the > laws. So you accused me of doing exactly that, totally unfounded. > > My impression seems to be more and more right - when responding to others' > contributions you are doing it from memory, so sometimes you don't remember > whether e.g. Eric wrote something or me. I have an advise - if you want to > accuse anyone about anything, check it thoroughly, think about it twice, > prepare (or present) quotations and only then procede. > >>>> People have stated the biggest lunacies in this thread, like the fact >>>> that there is no difference between free trumps and high side-suiters. >>> Nobody stated anything like that. >> Ehm - do you wish me to gather a list like the one above? I may be wrong >> in saying it was you, but I believe it was a post of yours this first >> appeared in. When I pointed out this was clearly wrong (after Alain told >> me a square is also a rectangle), Jeff confirmed once again that all >> rectangles are the same. > > He didn't. He stated that as long as only the difference between rectangles > and circles matters (as the difference between the winners and losers), we > don't have to distinguish between squares and not squares (trumps and not > trumps). > >> But very clearly the above was stated a few times, and I still maintain >> it is a lunacy. Moonshine, as you put it in another reference to our >> dear satelite. > > If you understood it that way, then of course it is lunacy. But in fact you > simply failed to grasp Jeff's (and others') point. > >> Face it, Maciej, there are two opinions in this, and there is nothing in >> the laws which will say which one of the two should guide our rulings. > > Yes, the laws do not define "normality" or "rationality". They should, as > long as those notions do not bear their dictionary meanings. Maybe something > close to LA definition, as somebody recently proposed? > >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 17:06:12 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:06:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be> <3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> Message-ID: <49905474.8040205@skynet.be> (Henk, you do realize I'm being asked direct questions here) John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:19 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] a question > > The Probst cheat has just invented a new game. He has a 2 card ending with a > trump and a card. I'm fairly sure there are no trumps left, but I've been > wrong before, and when he is it's usually a big one (that I finessed, drew > one more round and it didn't fall is my usual action to get there). I'd like > to draw one more round just in case but it is dangerous. > > The game is: Should I call TD Herman? What is the saddle point in terms of > my certainty for this action ? > > C'mon Herman, you can't let my cheating prosper. john > Good example, John, let me try and give a good answer. So your cheat is fairly certain there are no more trumps out. But he does not know which one, if there is one. Let's call the percentages 80% certain, 10% possibility of a trump, either higher or lower (I think the actual percentages don't matter). So he has three strategies: - he can play his trump. 80% chance of 3 tricks, 10% chance of 3 tricks, 10% chance of zero tricks (I think you can see where the trick values come from) - he can play his side suit winners. 80% of 3 tricks, 20% of 2 tricks. OK? - or he can claim, with Herman as TD. 80% of 3 tricks, 20% of 2 tricks. So where's his help in having Herman as TD? OK? he could claim, with Sven as TD: - then he gets 80% of 3 tricks, 10% of zero tricks, and 10% of 2 tricks (not cashing the high trump is a normal line, of course) Indeed that last option is worst. But where in the laws does it say the TD has to give a lower score than what can be reached at the table? Your cheat has a valid line which brings him exactly the same as he would get with me as TD. So there is no need for him to cheat to get that. OK? Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 9 23:48:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:48:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Non-expert bias [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >>>This is arrant bullshit. Nigel Guthrie: >>John and I agree to differ :) again :) John (MadDog) Probst: >plus ca change :) peace Nigel, but I do think you're wrong. I >am generally harsher on experts than beginners since it's self >evident a beginner is incapable of using UI, just for example. >I think that's true of many of peers too. John WBFLC Minutes 10th October 2008, page 2, concurred with MadDog: "In Law 12, 'serious error' should be judged according to the calibre of player." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 10 01:17:32 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:17:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Handling of §12.C.1 and §12.C.2 References: <498F5031.9090309@bridgescore.de><52235A09D75144C5BEA3E3213710CA3A@JOHN><49905F7E.5000501@bridgescore.de> <07A1BB1BE4AB4F32A63F429B0A56AE4C@JOHN> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:53 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 > > > Hi John, > > the question occurs whether a table score is a prerequisite to apply > ?12.C.1. > > I believe not. The obvious example is the "purposefully fouled" board in > a teams match. When a board becomes fouled after an extraordinary result > occurred the first time it was played and the losing side can be > determined to have screwed it up (eg a 14-12, and I'm not even suggesting > it's intentional) then we assign a score based on the likely outcome of > the board at the other table. ... and this with the board not even played > (it ain't the same deal any more even if it were played). This is > necessary to ensure probst cheats can't prosper of course. What we can > ALWAYS do is work out the likely result (in imps) and award that as a PP, > so we get there in the end. > > john > > It says: "When after an irregularity the Director is empowered > by these laws to adjust a score and is able to award an assigned > adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces *the *score *obtained > *in *play." (emphasis mine). > > ?12.C.2 says "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained > (...)" - if this would be applicable, the TD could only award average > plus. Definitely not so, otherwise I can foul bad result boards at teams and pay the 3 imps. It's in the "could have known" category, whatever law number it is this week :) John > > Regards, > > Christian > > John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: >> I think you can do what you like here. A player absenting himself from >> the >> table is subject to pretty tough penalty in any event. I assess a 20% >> fine >> and award the most fsvourable result at all likely result to the NO's. In >> other words if the 6NT requires even 2 finesses and hasn't been started I >> still award it. John >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Christian Farwig (BLML)" >> To: >> Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 9:35 PM >> Subject: [blml] Handling of ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 >> >> >> Hi, >> >> we had discussion lately on when to apply ?12.C.1 and ?12.C.2 and I >> would like you to help me on this. >> >> Lets assume the following case: >> During a board, East and South get into a quarrel regarding behaviour at >> the table. East jumps up, leaves table and refuses to play the board. >> The bidding was: >> >> N O S W >> 1NT p 6NT >> There are 12 tricks - for a top score. >> >> Setting apart the question on how to penalise East (quarter, behead, >> reprimand), how should the board been scored: >> >> a) if the quarrel occurs after 6NT but before the bidding is done >> b) if there are a number of tricks (1-10) played before East leaves the >> table >> c) if there are 11 tricks played before the game is interrupted >> >> Does is matter for your decision whether the 12 tricks are from the top, >> depend on good play or a subject to a 50/50 guess? >> >> Best regards >> >> Christian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 10 01:24:43 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:24:43 -0000 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 4:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] a question > (Henk, you do realize I'm being asked direct questions here) > > John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 8:19 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] a question >> >> The Probst cheat has just invented a new game. He has a 2 card ending >> with a >> trump and a card. I'm fairly sure there are no trumps left, but I've been >> wrong before, and when he is it's usually a big one (that I finessed, >> drew >> one more round and it didn't fall is my usual action to get there). I'd >> like >> to draw one more round just in case but it is dangerous. >> >> The game is: Should I call TD Herman? What is the saddle point in terms >> of >> my certainty for this action ? >> >> C'mon Herman, you can't let my cheating prosper. john >> > > Good example, John, let me try and give a good answer. > > So your cheat is fairly certain there are no more trumps out. But he > does not know which one, if there is one. > Let's call the percentages 80% certain, 10% possibility of a trump, > either higher or lower (I think the actual percentages don't matter). > > So he has three strategies: > - he can play his trump. 80% chance of 3 tricks, 10% chance of 3 tricks, > 10% chance of zero tricks (I think you can see where the trick values > come from) > - he can play his side suit winners. 80% of 3 tricks, 20% of 2 tricks. OK? > - or he can claim, with Herman as TD. 80% of 3 tricks, 20% of 2 tricks. > > So where's his help in having Herman as TD? > OK? he could claim, with Sven as TD: > - then he gets 80% of 3 tricks, 10% of zero tricks, and 10% of 2 tricks > (not cashing the high trump is a normal line, of course) > Indeed that last option is worst. > > But where in the laws does it say the TD has to give a lower score than > what can be reached at the table? > > Your cheat has a valid line which brings him exactly the same as he > would get with me as TD. So there is no need for him to cheat to get that. > > OK? Not quite, in my case the outstanding trump is likely to be larger (if there is one). My wife draws trumps religiously but is dyslexic. She sometimes gets 12 as 13. In her case the trump is usually small. (This is all true btw, Maxine leaves small trumps out, I forget that there's a big one out.) Should she (the probst cheatette, so to speak) call Herman? I don't think it's ever to her advantage to do so. But in my case it definitely is (since I'm inclined to draw the last trump in case and Herman stops me doing so. Hmm play based on how the TD will rule. Not convinced herman. rgds john > > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 9 15:14:57 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:14:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] Disciplinary Hearing 1 Appeals Committee: Bill Pencharz (Chairman, England), Herman De Wael (Scribe,Belgium), Jean-Claude Beineix (France), Grattan Endicott (England), PO Sundelin (Sweden) Open Teams Swiss B Round 2 The Facts: The facts leading up to this matter are described in Appeal 8. After the Director ruled in favour of East/West, North said "You are a Turkish Director, they are Turkish players, that's why you rule this way, I want another Tournament Director from another country." The Director: Reported this to the Appeals Committee, who asked the player to appear for a special hearing, which was held a few days after Appeal 8 had been dealt with. Present: The player, his representative, the Chief Tournament Director, the table Director, and a representative from the NBO of the player. The Player: The player's representative, who introduced himself as a frequent captain of national Junior and Open teams in which the player had appeared, spoke of the player's case. As to the facts of the case, they were slightly misrepresented. The Director had been the second one to reach the table, but the opponents had asked for a Turkish Director to make their case understood. The player believed that the Turkish Director should only translate, and let a neutral director handle the case. The player meant to politely ask for a neutral judge. The player added that he did not doubt that the Director's knowledge of the laws was excellent, and that he had not intended to insult him. The Committee: Stated that the EBL uses TD's who are above their nationality, who never give a ruling without consultation. Every ruling is the result of the combined pool of knowledge of a terrific team. Since the player is still quite young, the Committee decided to give guidance, not sanction. The Committee takes the facts very seriously and will remember them, and such things should never happen again, but there will be no formal report to the national federation. [nigel] Without a link to appeal 8, it's hard to comment, except in general terms. The player was wrong. He should have known that it would be a disciplinary matter; and that the committee would dismiss his allegation as slander. If possible, nevertheless, the director might have done better to recuse himself. Should there be a more delicate mechanism to look into such accusations? My *personal* experience is that rulings are impartial. But there is *hearsay* evidence of exceptional cases. Sorry Maciej :). For example, players sometimes claim that they can predict who will win a judgement ruling, simply from knowing who are involved. Anyway, the rules of a game should be kept as simple and objective as possible (while preserving the nature of the game) to make such allegations rarer and to ensure that justice is *seen* to be done. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 10 01:51:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:51:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Groucho Marx: Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. Hirsch Davis: ..... This entire thread is a waste of time. The original ruling was a simple book ruling that the TD got right. Days of posts claiming otherwise simply chew up bandwidth, and make a mockery of a forum that is supposed to be a serious discussion of bridge law. [remainder snipped, as I've already quoted more than enough useless text] Richard Hills: L'Heure zero (2007) is a reasonably faithful French adaptation of one of Agatha Christie's best novels, with a most ingenious conceit supported by some truly unexpected plot twists. In an early scene of the movie, Superintendent Martin Bataille has his time wasted by the headmistress of his daughter's school. Yet the insight that Bataille gains during that waste of time is instrumental to the denouement of the movie. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "irrational, adj. Unreasonable, illogical; not endowed with reason." Law 70E1: The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to adopt that line of play would be >>>irrational<<<. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. In the waste of time "a question" thread, Grattan Endicott wrote: +=+ One should note that where it now appears in the claims laws 'irrational' is determined by reference to pure logic and reason. It is no longer linked to the class of player in the 2007 laws but has only its dictionary meaning and is the same for all players. Around the year 2001 there was an appeals decision determined at international level that involved a decision in respect of irrationality and the playing of declarer's last outstanding trump. The decision was related to the class of player and might well not have been the same, therefore, under the 2007 laws. I do not recall the precise facts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Yes, now that the old "irrational for the class of player involved" has been replaced by the new "irrational", it seems to me that Grattan is suggesting that the new wording of the new Law 70E1 means that a Mrs Guggenheim who has lost the plot and incorrectly claimed is deemed to be no more and no less rational than an Unlucky Expert who has lost the plot and incorrectly claimed. That is, in the canonical trump suit: Dummy KQT98 Declarer A765 it would be equally irrational for a Mrs Guggenheim and an Unlucky Expert to duck the first round of trumps, guaranteeing a trick for an opponent's jack (so David Burn's Death Penalty is not part of the 2007 claim Laws); .....but also..... it would be equally rational for a plot-losing Mrs Guggenheim and also a plot-losing Unlucky Expert to play the ace of trumps first -- no more Get Out Of Jail Free cards for experts who fail to mention 100% safety plays in their claim statements. It seems that Grattan is also saying that consequentially he might have voted a different way on the much cited 2001 European Appeals Committee, if the 2007 Law 70E1 had been in force then. Although the AC ruling has been much cited, it has not appeared in full on blml during the recent waste of time debates. I therefore attach it, for some time-wasting reading (outside of a dog). 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 Tenerife: Appeal No. 41 Iceland v Norway Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England) Open Teams Round 35 Board 9. Dealer North. East/West Vul. \ AKT63 \ KQ85 \ 2 \ 982 Q982 \ --- 973 \ 642 AJ75 \ KQT864 K4 \ 7653 J754 \ AJT \ 93 \ AQJT \ WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Brogeland Ingimarsson S?lensminde Magnusson --- 1S Pass 2NT Pass 3C Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass Contract: Four Spades, played by North Lead: King of Diamonds Play: DK / DQ / SA / C 2-10 / S J-Q-K / C 8-J-K At this point, the remaining cards are T6 KQ85 --- 9 98 --- 973 642 AJ T8 --- 76 75 AJT --- AQ at which point North claimed Result: 9 or 10 tricks The Facts: North claimed, saying "I take your last trump". The Director: Ruled that North may well have forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. The Director found that North would execute a play that leads to 10 tricks 2 times in 3. Ruling: Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 66.7% of 4S= by North (NS +420) plus 33.3% of 4S-1 by North (NS -50) Relevant Laws: Law 70A, 70C3 Law 12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players except East, and the Captain of Iceland The Players: North/South spoke through their Captain, who was also the scorer at the table, and he had witnessed the facts. North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely North would have cashed the S10 before playing the second round of Clubs. When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he had not pronounced a number at the table. West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the CK. Then North had claimed with the statement "I take your last trump". He had not wanted to call the Director then, but asked declarer "how many trumps do you think I have?", to which North had replied "one". This fact had not been told to the Director at the table, but North did not dispute it before the Committee. The Committee: Began by stating that the Director's ruling was wrong in Law. Since there is no assigned adjusted score to be given, Law 12C3 cannot be applied. Richard Hills: Interrupt. Yes, the Director's ruling was wrong in Law, but not any Appeals Committee has the power to so rule. Law 93B3. Instead, it was the responsibility of the Director in charge to correct the error. Law 93B1. The Committee (continued): The Committee judged that North had, quite probably, forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. In that case, Law 70C3 says that claimer shall lose any trick that can be lost by normal play. The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the S10, as per his claim statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a well- established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last. With that principle in mind, there is no order of play of the cards that will not lead to 10 tricks. West will (to North's surprise) ruff one of the tricks that North believes is his, but declarer or dummy has a trump left to ruff the diamond return. The Committee's decision: Director's ruling changed. Score adjusted to 4S by North, making 10 tricks, NS +420 Deposit: Returned -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 10 02:23:15 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:23:15 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN><49905474.8040205@skynet.be> <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> Message-ID: <000701c98b1e$26065a00$15844c59@chello.pl> [snip] > Hmm play based on how the TD will rule. Not convinced Herman. > > rgds john Don't be so surprised John. Herman is the one who advocated in the past taking TD into consideration when making decisions at the table, e.g. advising the players to guess the meaning of partner's undiscussed calls (on the basis that otherwise the TD will rule against them whether "undiscussed" was true or not) or advising them to use dWS (to receive more favourable ruling). I'm quite surprised that Herman enthusiastically encourages the players to perform illegal/bordering on illegal actions, but doesn't encourage fully lawful, correct, trouble-saving action which is always issuing a claim statement (additionally the laws say that it "should" be done). If I was catty I could say that Herman doesn't want to give such advices because the players issuing the statements are doomed if their proposed lines fail, but otherwise there is always Herman with his specific definition of "normality" for the rescue ;-) Sorry Herman, I don't really think so, but your fierceness in defending lazy claimers is a bit suspicious (although in fact is probably based on your own claiming style) :-) Anyone wants to take a bet that if the lawmakers changed the laws to state: "the player who didn't issue a claim statements is deemed to lose trick(s) to any remaining trump(s) in the opponents' hands, whether he knows about it (them) or not", it would take at most two months for Belgian players to comply (excluding Herman, he would make me lose deliberately)? Some rulings against change lazy people into ant workers :-) Hmm, maybe I should settle for one month? Regards Maciej PS Please, do not write complaints that I'm to harsh. It is a hypothetical change not having my full support. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 10 04:13:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:13:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net> Message-ID: >..... >Anyway, the rules of a game should be kept as simple and objective >as possible (while preserving the nature of the game) to make such >allegations rarer and to ensure that justice is *seen* to be done. WBF Code of Practice (October 2008 revision), page 4: Personnel An appeal committee will ideally incorporate a quota of strong players together with other members considered to be of broad bridge experience who have a balanced objective approach to the decision making process. The chairman of a committee should ensure that the stronger players play a leading role in questions of bridge judgement. The other members of a committee seek a balanced judgement when applying law and regulation. It is desirable that at least one member of a committee should have an insight into the laws of the game, but it is not that member's task nor the function of the committee to establish what law is applicable and how it is to be interpreted; these are matters to be enquired of the Director in charge (i.e. "The Director" to which Law 81 refers) or his nominee for the purpose. The committee applies the given interpretation of the law to the facts and circumstances of the case. For the recording of the process and the decisions, together with the basis for them and relevant information, the WBF recommends that each committee should have, or should appoint one of its number to be, its Scribe. Withdrawal A committee member who has prior knowledge of the subject matter of an appeal, of a kind that may affect his objective participation, should recuse himself from the committee and will preferably be substituted. In an international tournament a committee member may decide to recuse himself because he feels too closely involved, or feels he may be biased, or has discussed the matter with interested parties, or has pre-decided the outcome. It is expected that co- nationals of players involved in the appeal will constitute at most only a small minority of the committee. 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 Feb 10 05:48:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:48:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Byrne, The 2548 Best Things Anybody Ever Said, number 499: "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." -- Joe Ancis Robert Frick asked: >Does "normal" need to be clarified? > >I think it does. Does anyone disagree? Richard Hills answers: Yes, in my opinion the claim Laws are clear. Robert Frick asked: >Agree? Richard Hills answers: Yes, in my opinion a claim statement is often unclear. Robert Frick asked: >Meaning 1: What is THE normal way to play this trump suit? > >AJxx > >Kxxx > >The normal way is to play the king first and then, if no one >has yet shown out, finesse the jack. >..... >I honestly don't know if the player's level expertise is or >should be taken into account when constructing "normal". Richard Hills quibbles: No, THE normal way to play Dummy AJ54 Declarer K932 for zero trump losers is not to cash the king first, but instead to lead the deuce or trey towards the AJ. If RHO has a singleton trump queen, then there is a certain trump loser anyway. But if LHO has the singleton trump queen, then -- provided that you have not let the trump king beat air -- RHO's T876 of trumps can be drawn via a finesse of the 9. This is a 100% safety play, since you still play trumps for no loser in the more "normal" layout of Qx or Qxx with LHO. The only disadvantage of the 100% safety play is when RHO does hold the singleton queen, in which case Mrs Guggenheim will be one off while the Unlucky Expert will be two off. But if the Unlucky Expert was making a conditional claim in 7S, with this statement to his fellow Unlucky Expert opponents, "You and I both know this suit combination," then if MadDog was RHO and I was LHO with the singleton queen, we would accept our Grand Unluckiness and not even bother summoning the Director. Of course dummy might believe that there was a universal iron rule of "kings first" with this combination, therefore dummy might summon the Director in an attempt to invalidate declarer's claim. Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose. Law 68D: "...if it is doubted by any player (dummy included)..." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Tue Feb 10 06:26:13 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:26:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200902100526.n1A5QGGF018631@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 03:48 PM 10/02/2009, you wrote: >Robert Byrne, The 2548 Best Things Anybody Ever Said, >number 499: > >"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." >-- Joe Ancis > >Robert Frick asked: > > >Does "normal" need to be clarified? > > > >I think it does. Does anyone disagree? > >Richard Hills answers: > >Yes, in my opinion the claim Laws are clear. > >Robert Frick asked: > > >Agree? > >Richard Hills answers: > >Yes, in my opinion a claim statement is often unclear. > >Robert Frick asked: > > >Meaning 1: What is THE normal way to play this trump suit? > > > >AJxx > > > >Kxxx > > > >The normal way is to play the king first and then, if no one > >has yet shown out, finesse the jack. > >..... > >I honestly don't know if the player's level expertise is or > >should be taken into account when constructing "normal". > >Richard Hills quibbles: > >No, THE normal way to play > >Dummy >AJ54 > >Declarer >K932 > >for zero trump losers is not to cash the king first, but instead >to lead the deuce or trey towards the AJ. If RHO has a >singleton trump queen, then there is a certain trump loser >anyway. But if LHO has the singleton trump queen, then -- >provided that you have not let the trump king beat air -- RHO's >T876 of trumps can be drawn via a finesse of the 9. > >This is a 100% safety play, since you still play trumps for no >loser in the more "normal" layout of Qx or Qxx with LHO. > >The only disadvantage of the 100% safety play is when RHO does >hold the singleton queen, in which case Mrs Guggenheim will be >one off while the Unlucky Expert will be two off. But if the >Unlucky Expert was making a conditional claim in 7S, with this >statement to his fellow Unlucky Expert opponents, "You and I >both know this suit combination," then if MadDog was RHO and I >was LHO with the singleton queen, we would accept our Grand >Unluckiness and not even bother summoning the Director. > >Of course dummy might believe that there was a universal iron >rule of "kings first" with this combination, therefore dummy >might summon the Director in an attempt to invalidate declarer's >claim. > >Law 79A2: > >"A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick >that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his >opponents could not lose. > >Law 68D: > >"...if it is doubted by any player (dummy included)..." > Thank you Richard for at least getting the correct play right. However, this type of posting is really what is causing the confusion in this thread IMHO. What the hell is a declarer claiming for in this position without some statement about how he is going to play? Perhaps, "I am an expert and I will play this combination the correct way", might go alright in Belgium, but I will get to the table, and play the combination the way to extract maximum tricks for the defenders. So they get a trick whenever there is a singleton Q on the left, a doubleton Q on the right, and possibly even when there is a doubleton Q on the left. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) \ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 10 07:22:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 22:22:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] Class of Player References: Message-ID: <15980FC7CD9941C5A75C9DBD2E15E30E@MARVLAPTOP> Grattan wrote: +=+ One should note that where it now appears in the claims laws 'irrational' is determined by reference to pure logic and reason. It is no longer linked to the class of player in the 2007 laws but has only its dictionary meaning and is the same for all players. .+=+ This is a welcome change, as it has always been my opinion that the assumed strength of a player should be that of a typical player in the event. No Mrs. Guggenheim, no Unlucky Expert, just that virtual player. This leads to identical rulings for identical situations, as is desirable. So how come "serious error" in Law 12 "should be judged according to the calibre of player," according to the WBFLC minutes of 10 October 2008? Why isn't it judged the same for all players in an event? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 10 07:32:32 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:32:32 +1100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200902100526.n1A5QGGF018631@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove: >..... >So they get a trick whenever there is a singleton Q on the left, >a doubleton Q on the right, and possibly even when there is a >doubleton Q on the left. Richard Hills: Losing to a doubleton Q on the left "normal"? Could be. If the bidding and/or opening lead suggests RHO has trump length, then just as likely as LHO holding Q8 doubleton is LHO holding T8 doubleton Dummy AJ54 LHO RHO T8 Q76 Declarer K932 in which case the "normal" winning line is to play the ace, then run the jack to pin LHO's ten. The legendary American expert of the 1930s, P. Hal Sims, gained headlines by punching the much younger American expert Oswald Jacoby at a bridge championship (Jacoby was too sportsmanlike to retaliate against an older man). But Sims gained matchpoints by his notorious "table presence", always able to sniff out the location of a missing queen. Almost always..... On one occasion, unbeknownst to Sims or his opponents, friends slipped a cold deck into Sims' game of rubber bridge. Needing to resolve a two-way finesse for a vital queen, Sims carefully studied the opponents' twitches and mannerisms. Sims then exploded, "Damn it, you both have the queen!" And so they did, redeal. Ergo, "normal" for P. Hal Sims was correctly finding queens, so Sims could have claimed 13 tricks in 7S without any specification of which way he was playing the trumps, then be awarded the grand slam whenever the opponents did not have a certain trump trick. :-) 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 Feb 10 07:56:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:56:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?Handling_of_=A712=2EC=2E1_and_=A712=2EC=2E2?= =?iso-8859-1?q?____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: <49905F7E.5000501@bridgescore.de> Message-ID: Christian Farwig: [snip] >?12.C.2 says "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained >(...)" - if this would be applicable, the TD could only award average >plus. > >Regards, > >Christian Marv French noted this in the 10th October 2008 WBF LC minute, page 4: "When the Director is empowered elsewhere in the laws simply to 'award an adjusted score' he refers to Law 12 to determine whether this will be an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Law 12 intends that whenever he is able to award an assigned adjusted score he does so; if Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2(a) applies the adjusted score is artificial. Note that 12C2(a) does not say 'no result has been obtained' but 'no result can be obtained', so that if a board is incomplete but has reached a stage when completion of the board can be foreseen an assigned score is appropriate." Welcome to blml, Christian. Do you have any cats? The moderator almost wrote: >>I think we have gone past discussing bridge laws (for which the list >>is intended) and into the area of personal cats (for which the list >>is NOT intended). But cats are Laws to themselves. My marmalade cat Lionel has created a Law that he must be fed breakfast at 6:00am, and his cLaws enforce his Laws. 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 Feb 10 08:33:47 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:33:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> > [nigel] > Without a link to appeal 8, it's hard to comment, except in general terms. The player was wrong. He should have known that it would be a disciplinary matter; and that the committee would dismiss his allegation as slander. If possible, nevertheless, the director might have done better to recuse himself. http://www.eurobridge.org/departments/appeals/Appeals2007.pdf > Should there be a more delicate mechanism to look into such accusations? My *personal* experience is that rulings are impartial. But there is *hearsay* evidence of exceptional cases. Sorry Maciej :). For example, players sometimes claim that they can predict who will win a judgement ruling, simply from knowing who are involved. Anyway, the rules of a game should be kept as simple and objective as possible (while preserving the nature of the game) to make such allegations rarer and to ensure that justice is *seen* to be done. No need to be sorry. I have nothing against your contributions, they can be as much worthy as those from any other BLMLer. And I don't disqualify hearsay evidence - as they say "in every gossip there is a grain of truth". But if you want to see your accusations treated seriously, you simply *have* to provide objective evidence - illegally/very wrongly decided cases in which the relations between the parties and the TDs/ACs played any role. Without them you are acting as a preacher of Conspiracy Theory, as you were when accusing the TDs of deliberately issuing bad laws to have more work (and therefore more money, I assume) or when accusing the experts that they use "reverse hesitations" (so in fact they are cheats). I repeat - there are certainly bad rulings, incompetence, bias in bridge, as they are in real world. But those are impossible to be avoided, no system and no laws will change it, because there, at the end of the "chain", are humans - bridge players, TDs, AC members, and humans will screw up everything from time to time, that is our nature. Regards Maciej From blml at bridgescore.de Tue Feb 10 09:03:19 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:03:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-1?q?Handling_of_=A712=2EC=2E1_and_=A712=2EC=2E2?= =?iso-8859-1?q?____=5BSEC=3DUNOFFICIAL=5D?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499134C7.6070709@bridgescore.de> Hi Richard, thanks for the welcome; actually I am lurking for a long, long time. And I do not have cats. Cats are a religion and I am definitely agnostic ;-) Regards, Christian richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Christian Farwig: > > [snip] > >> ?12.C.2 says "When owing to an irregularity no result can be obtained >> (...)" - if this would be applicable, the TD could only award average >> plus. >> >> Regards, >> >> Christian > > Marv French noted this in the 10th October 2008 WBF LC minute, page 4: > > "When the Director is empowered elsewhere in the laws simply to 'award > an adjusted score' he refers to Law 12 to determine whether this will > be an assigned or an artificial adjusted score. Law 12 intends that > whenever he is able to award an assigned adjusted score he does so; if > Law 12C1(d) or Law 12C2(a) applies the adjusted score is artificial. > Note that 12C2(a) does not say 'no result has been obtained' but 'no > result can be obtained', so that if a board is incomplete but has > reached a stage when completion of the board can be foreseen an > assigned score is appropriate." > > Welcome to blml, Christian. Do you have any cats? > > The moderator almost wrote: > >>> I think we have gone past discussing bridge laws (for which the list >>> is intended) and into the area of personal cats (for which the list >>> is NOT intended). > > But cats are Laws to themselves. My marmalade cat Lionel has created > a Law that he must be fed breakfast at 6:00am, and his cLaws enforce > his Laws. > > > 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 10 09:47:55 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:47:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002901c98b5c$484010a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2009 12:51 AM Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Tenerife: Appeal No. 41 ................. (cut).............. Committee: Began by stating that the Director's ruling was wrong in Law. Since there is no assigned adjusted score to be given, Law 12C3 cannot be applied. Richard Hills: Interrupt. Yes, the Director's ruling was wrong in Law, but not any Appeals Committee has the power to so rule. Law 93B3. Instead, it was the responsibility of the Director in charge to correct the error. Law 93B1. ........................ (cut)......................................... +=+ (Grattan) I imagine it depends how one understands the following in relation to the 1997 code of laws and the footnote to 93B3: Tenerife Conditions of Contest (extract): "The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93C, shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these Rules, arising from any appeal or investigation and its findings and decisions will be final. The Appeals Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or decisions of a Tournament Director (except those foreseen by Law 93B3) and remove, increase or vary any penalty which may have been imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted score." +=+ From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Tue Feb 10 10:28:51 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 11:28:51 +0200 Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499148D3.8090502@jldata.fi> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Groucho Marx: > > Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. > Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. > > Hirsch Davis: > > ..... > This entire thread is a waste of time. The original ruling was a simple > book ruling that the TD got right. Days of posts claiming otherwise > simply chew up bandwidth, and make a mockery of a forum that is supposed > to be a serious discussion of bridge law. > > [remainder snipped, as I've already quoted more than enough useless text] > > Richard Hills: > > L'Heure zero (2007) is a reasonably faithful French adaptation of one of > Agatha Christie's best novels, with a most ingenious conceit supported by > some truly unexpected plot twists. In an early scene of the movie, > Superintendent Martin Bataille has his time wasted by the headmistress of > his daughter's school. Yet the insight that Bataille gains during that > waste of time is instrumental to the denouement of the movie. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "irrational, adj. Unreasonable, illogical; not endowed with reason." > > Law 70E1: > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play the > success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other > with a particular card, unless an opponent failed to follow to the suit > of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to > follow to that suit on any normal* line of play, or unless failure to > adopt that line of play would be >>>irrational<<<. > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would > be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. > > In the waste of time "a question" thread, Grattan Endicott wrote: > > +=+ One should note that where it now appears in the claims laws > 'irrational' is determined by reference to pure logic and reason. It is > no longer linked to the class of player in the 2007 laws but has only > its dictionary meaning and is the same for all players. > Around the year 2001 there was an appeals decision determined at > international level that involved a decision in respect of irrationality > and the playing of declarer's last outstanding trump. The decision was > related to the class of player and might well not have been the same, > therefore, under the 2007 laws. I do not recall the precise facts. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > Yes, now that the old "irrational for the class of player involved" has > been replaced by the new "irrational", it seems to me that Grattan is > suggesting that the new wording of the new Law 70E1 means that a Mrs > Guggenheim who has lost the plot and incorrectly claimed is deemed to be > no more and no less rational than an Unlucky Expert who has lost the plot > and incorrectly claimed. > > That is, in the canonical trump suit: > > Dummy > KQT98 > > Declarer > A765 > > it would be equally irrational for a Mrs Guggenheim and an Unlucky Expert > to duck the first round of trumps, guaranteeing a trick for an opponent's > jack (so David Burn's Death Penalty is not part of the 2007 claim Laws); > > .....but also..... > > it would be equally rational for a plot-losing Mrs Guggenheim and also a > plot-losing Unlucky Expert to play the ace of trumps first -- no more Get > Out Of Jail Free cards for experts who fail to mention 100% safety plays > in their claim statements. > > It seems that Grattan is also saying that consequentially he might have > voted a different way on the much cited 2001 European Appeals Committee, > if the 2007 Law 70E1 had been in force then. Although the AC ruling has > been much cited, it has not appeared in full on blml during the recent > waste of time debates. I therefore attach it, for some time-wasting > reading (outside of a dog). > > 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 > > Tenerife: Appeal No. 41 > > Iceland v Norway > > Appeals Committee: > Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki > Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England) > > Open Teams Round 35 > Board 9. Dealer North. East/West Vul. > > \ AKT63 > \ KQ85 > \ 2 > \ 982 > Q982 \ --- > 973 \ 642 > AJ75 \ KQT864 > K4 \ 7653 > J754 \ > AJT \ > 93 \ > AQJT \ > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Brogeland Ingimarsson S?lensminde Magnusson > --- 1S Pass 2NT > Pass 3C Pass 4S > Pass Pass Pass > > Contract: Four Spades, played by North > > Lead: King of Diamonds > > Play: DK / DQ / SA / C 2-10 / S J-Q-K / C 8-J-K At this point, the > remaining cards are > > T6 > KQ85 > --- > 9 > 98 --- > 973 642 > AJ T8 > --- 76 > 75 > AJT > --- > AQ > > at which point North claimed > > Result: 9 or 10 tricks > > The Facts: > North claimed, saying "I take your last trump". > > The Director: > Ruled that North may well have forgotten about the extra outstanding > trump. > > The Director found that North would execute a play that leads to 10 > tricks 2 times in 3. > > Ruling: > Score adjusted to > Both sides receive: > 66.7% of 4S= by North (NS +420) plus > 33.3% of 4S-1 by North (NS -50) > > Relevant Laws: > Law 70A, 70C3 > Law 12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award > Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. > > North/South appealed. > > Present: All players except East, and the Captain of Iceland > > The Players: > North/South spoke through their Captain, who was also the scorer at > the table, and he had witnessed the facts. > > North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been > thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps > had been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already > finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely > North would have cashed the S10 before playing the second round of > Clubs. > > When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he had > not pronounced a number at the table. > > West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the CK. > Then North had claimed with the statement "I take your last trump". He > had not wanted to call the Director then, but asked declarer "how many > trumps do you think I have?", to which North had replied "one". This > fact had not been told to the Director at the table, but North did not > dispute it before the Committee. > > The Committee: > Began by stating that the Director's ruling was wrong in Law. Since > there is no assigned adjusted score to be given, Law 12C3 cannot be > applied. > > Richard Hills: > > Interrupt. Yes, the Director's ruling was wrong in Law, but not any > Appeals Committee has the power to so rule. Law 93B3. Instead, it > was the responsibility of the Director in charge to correct the error. > Law 93B1. > > The Committee (continued): > > The Committee judged that North had, quite probably, forgotten about > the extra outstanding trump. In that case, Law 70C3 says that claimer > shall lose any trick that can be lost by normal play. > > The Committee then had to decide whether or not there is any line of > normal play that leads to the loss of the tenth trick. Claimer will > take whichever card is returned, including a diamond, which can be > ruffed in either hand. He will then cash the S10, as per his claim > statement, and will then believe his cards to be high. There is a well- > established principle that, when a claimer knows he has high cards, any > order he can play them is deemed "normal". It is the view of the > Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the > trump suit, which is cashed last. > > With that principle in mind, there is no order of play of the cards > that will not lead to 10 tricks. West will (to North's surprise) ruff > one of the tricks that North believes is his, but declarer or dummy has > a trump left to ruff the diamond return. > > The Committee's decision: > Director's ruling changed. > Score adjusted to 4S by North, making 10 tricks, NS +420 > > Deposit: Returned > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > I think only David Burn has discussed about this committee's idea: It is the view of the Committee however that, in a case like this, this does not include the trump suit, which is cashed last. David Burn wrote: The trouble with trying to make an "equitable" regulation is that you'd have to go into far too much detail. Of course, if you have three aces left including the trump ace, it would border on "irrational" as most players understand the term not to play the trump ace first, just in case. If you have the trump deuce and two aces, it would equally border on "irrational" to play the trump first. One could imagine this kind of regulation: if you have three aces left and a trump lower than the eight, "rational" play is to cash the aces (if you have forgotten a trump, the odds are that it is higher than the seven); whereas if your trump is the nine or better, "rational" play is to lead the trump first. If you have the eight, we'll award a 50-50 adjusted score... Ridiculous? Of course it's ridiculous. But it's the kind of mess you get into if you try to adjudicate claims based on what would have happened at the table, and the mess is made worse if you create a regulation to help you adjudicate on the basis of what the player would have done had he played the hand out. The Laws are no better: "any doubtful points are resolved against the claimer" - but what is a "doubtful point"? Instead, create this regulation (or even this Law): a claimer states the number of tricks he proposes to win, and the order in which his remaining cards will be played to win those tricks. Any cards not encompassed in his statement are deemed to be played in the legal order most advantageous to the opponents. This isn't completely foolproof, and could lead to an absurdity of this kind: a player with two trumps (spades) and two red aces tables his cards with no statement other than "the rest are mine". Well, an opponent could win a trump and lead a club, on which per the regulation above claimer would have to discard one of his aces instead of ruffing. The process could be repeated, so that the claimer makes one trick instead of three, a result that even I would consider inequitable. But you could add to the end of the regulation above a rider to the effect that claimer is not deemed to make any irrational plays, and then you would be dealing with "irrational" in the true sense of the word. David Burn London, England Juuso When claimer plays, by his claim statement, spade 10, he will see spade 8 or 9. Then he for sure knows, that there can't be out any spade, that is lower than his 7. He can never draw any trumps, but of cource play it. All his side winners are not some collection of fotos, they really are High, by definition. Any careful player would play then his side winners. I would 100% of time. I guess, that most of us would. But I don't know, if not playing side winners is irrational, but at least worth to discuss. For me playing last small trump feels so wrong. But this is very special case: Claimer must start high trump, he will know that if there is any trump left, it will higher than his and his side winners are without doubt high. Best regards Juuso Leikola From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 10 14:28:33 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:28:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For example, declarer plays out the hand, in no trump, and comes down to two good spades, one good heart, and a losing diamond. There are three normal plays for the remaining tricks: spade-spade-heart-diamond, spade-heart-spade-diamond, and heart-spade-spade-diamond. Now suppose this declarer makes a careless claim for the remaining three tricks. The opps dispute, you are called, and declarer proposed that he is going to cash his hearts and spades and then lose a diamond. You wish he had said this sooner, but you still have to rule. Law 70D says that you cannot accept any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful. But all three normal lines of play lead to the same result, making 3 of 4 tricks. So you have to rule that he gets three tricks. Scenario 2 is that declarer claims for all of the remaining tricks. As before, the opps dispute, you come to the table, declarer (who has now had time to think about the error of his ways) says he is going to cash two spades, one heart, and then his diamond. How should you rule? Well, his stated line of play leads to three tricks, not four. All of the other normal lines of play lead to the same result. So you have to give him making three. (If he leads a diamond first, he gets only two tricks, but we have already established that that is not a normal line of play.) There are two exceptions. One is if you define normal in terms of his apparent awareness of the hand at the time of the claim. I don't exactly know how you read the rules to get to it. L70D2 doesn't say that "normal" should be determined this way, and it even has a footnote to help describe normal. But if you do that, then any order of the play of the cards is plausible, reasonable, and "normal". So, wosrt case being that declarer would lose two tricks if diamonds were played first, you would give declarer only two tricks. The other exception is to keep this definiton of normal but decide that, with two good spades and a good heart, playing a losing diamond before this is "normal". At least some declarers are going to lose track, and maybe we don't have to consider that our declarer is an expert. Perhaps you think it is 1 time in 20 and you feel that is often enough to be deemed normal. Both are probably wrong, but anyway... So you don't give the person who claimed 4 tricks his three tricks, you give him two tricks. But now return to the player who claimed 3 tricks and stated the correct order of play. You have decided that playing a diamond first is normal, so you give him only two tricks. And, you pretty much have to feel as comfortable with this ruling as you do with ruling that the player who claimed all of the tricks gets only two tricks (because you are ignoring the awareness of the situation suggested by the claim). Summary. What I am trying to do is show what it would be like if directors ruled using a definition of normal based only on the hand and play (and perhaps the expertise of the claimer), ignoring the awareness displayed in the claiming statement. I know that in practice most declarers and ACs use this awareness when determining "normal". As noted, I don't know how one would justify that using just the laws. Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 10 09:58:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 09:58:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be> <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> Message-ID: <499141A6.6000502@skynet.be> John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > Not quite, in my case the outstanding trump is likely to be larger (if there > is one). My wife draws trumps religiously but is dyslexic. She sometimes > gets 12 as 13. In her case the trump is usually small. (This is all true > btw, Maxine leaves small trumps out, I forget that there's a big one out.) > > Should she (the probst cheatette, so to speak) call Herman? I don't think > it's ever to her advantage to do so. But in my case it definitely is (since > I'm inclined to draw the last trump in case and Herman stops me doing so. > Hmm play based on how the TD will rule. Not convinced herman. > Well John, then just change the two 10% in my reasoning to a 15% large and 5% small trump (you) or vice-versa (Maxine) and do the maths again. The Probst cheat will always be able to play the same way that I rule, so he cannot gain from my ruling. Quite the reverse, since my ruling will be based on the worst play of the side suits, while the "cheat" is able to choose one of the suits - if he chooses better than I do, he gains over my ruling. Check it out, John, it's true. I like your argument about Probst cheats very much, but you have to admit it works in both directions. If a Probst cheat cannot gain over my ruling, my ruling should not be called illegal. > rgds john > > >> Herman. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 10 10:02:23 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:02:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <000701c98b1e$26065a00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN><49905474.8040205@skynet.be> <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> <000701c98b1e$26065a00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4991429F.8020307@skynet.be> Sorry Henk, but there are some things that need saying. Bystry wrote: > > I'm quite surprised that Herman enthusiastically encourages the players to > perform illegal/bordering on illegal actions, but doesn't encourage fully > lawful, correct, trouble-saving action which is always issuing a claim > statement (additionally the laws say that it "should" be done). > Maciej is again confusing the two types of claim rulings: A) wrong claims: a player forgets that there is a trump outstanding; B) wrong claim statements: a player does not make his intentions clear enough. In cases of type B, the Director needs to educate, and this means being harsh. But in cases of type A, the player has done nothing wrong. So there is no need to educate by giving harsh rulings. The claims we are talking about here are claim rulings of type A: a player has forgotten an outstanding trump and we need to decide if he loses 1 trick to that trump, or more. The rest of this mail is again too personal, so I won't answer. I'd wish Henk would be as harsh on others as he is apparently on me. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 10 13:58:16 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:58:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499148D3.8090502@jldata.fi> References: <499148D3.8090502@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <499179E8.8010503@skynet.be> Lapinjatka wrote: > For me playing last small trump feels so wrong. > > Best regards > Juuso Leikola > I just wished there were more like Juuso out there, who come out with what they feel. I was certain I was not alone is so feeling. If blml-members do not appreciate the opinions of Herman De Wael and Jens Auken, perhaps they'll appreciate those of Juuso Leikola. Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 10 16:57:12 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:57:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4991A3D8.7080200@aol.com> Hola Robert! I have a problem with your paragraph (below) starting with "Scenario 2". But perhaps I have misunderstood you. You say (in this case/scenario) that declarer has claimed for the rest of the tricks. That means he believes that all of his cards are high, including the diamond. This is quite different from the first claim and makes the decision that it would not be normal to play diamonds first irrelevant. If he believes that all of his cards are high there is no reason he would not play the diamond first. (What he says after the TD has been called may not be considered.) Playing the diamond first if he believes all of the cards are high seems just as normal to me as other lines. So, in my opinion, only 2 tricks for him. Once again I'd like to note that the laws are very clear as to how one should claim and it isn't difficult, so why not do it right? JE Robert Frick schrieb: > For example, declarer plays out the hand, in no trump, and comes down to > two good spades, one good heart, and a losing diamond. There are three > normal plays for the remaining tricks: spade-spade-heart-diamond, > spade-heart-spade-diamond, and heart-spade-spade-diamond. > > Now suppose this declarer makes a careless claim for the remaining three > tricks. The opps dispute, you are called, and declarer proposed that he is > going to cash his hearts and spades and then lose a diamond. > > You wish he had said this sooner, but you still have to rule. Law 70D says > that you cannot accept any successful line of play not embraced in the > original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of > play that would be less successful. But all three normal lines of play > lead to the same result, making 3 of 4 tricks. So you have to rule that he > gets three tricks. > > Scenario 2 is that declarer claims for all of the remaining tricks. As > before, the opps dispute, you come to the table, declarer (who has now had > time to think about the error of his ways) says he is going to cash two > spades, one heart, and then his diamond. How should you rule? Well, his > stated line of play leads to three tricks, not four. All of the other > normal lines of play lead to the same result. So you have to give him > making three. (If he leads a diamond first, he gets only two tricks, but > we have already established that that is not a normal line of play.) > > There are two exceptions. One is if you define normal in terms of his > apparent awareness of the hand at the time of the claim. I don't exactly > know how you read the rules to get to it. L70D2 doesn't say that "normal" > should be determined this way, and it even has a footnote to help describe > normal. > > But if you do that, then any order of the play of the cards is plausible, > reasonable, and "normal". So, wosrt case being that declarer would lose > two tricks if diamonds were played first, you would give declarer only two > tricks. > > The other exception is to keep this definiton of normal but decide that, > with two good spades and a good heart, playing a losing diamond before > this is "normal". At least some declarers are going to lose track, and > maybe we don't have to consider that our declarer is an expert. Perhaps > you think it is 1 time in 20 and you feel that is often enough to be > deemed normal. Both are probably wrong, but anyway... > > So you don't give the person who claimed 4 tricks his three tricks, you > give him two tricks. But now return to the player who claimed 3 tricks and > stated the correct order of play. You have decided that playing a diamond > first is normal, so you give him only two tricks. And, you pretty much > have to feel as comfortable with this ruling as you do with ruling that > the player who claimed all of the tricks gets only two tricks (because you > are ignoring the awareness of the situation suggested by the claim). > > Summary. What I am trying to do is show what it would be like if directors > ruled using a definition of normal based only on the hand and play (and > perhaps the expertise of the claimer), ignoring the awareness displayed in > the claiming statement. I know that in practice most declarers and ACs use > this awareness when determining "normal". As noted, I don't know how one > would justify that using just the laws. > > Bob > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 10 14:43:48 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:43:48 +0000 Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49918494.7070404@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills quotes] Tenerife: Appeal No. 41 Iceland v Norway Appeals Committee: Jens Auken (Chairman, Denmark), Herman De Wael (Scribe, Belgium), Naki Bruni (Italy), Grattan Endicott (England) Open Teams Round 35 Board 9. Dealer North. East/West Vul. \ AKT63 \ KQ85 \ 2 \ 982 Q982 \ --- 973 \ 642 AJ75 \ KQT864 K4 \ 7653 J754 \ AJT \ 93 \ AQJT \ WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Brogeland Ingimarsson S?lensminde Magnusson --- 1S Pass 2NT Pass 3C Pass 4S Pass Pass Pass Contract: Four Spades, played by North Lead: King of Diamonds Play: DK / DQ / SA / C 2-10 / S J-Q-K / C 8-J-K At this point, the remaining cards are T6 KQ85 --- 9 98 --- 973 642 AJ T8 --- 76 75 AJT --- AQ at which point North claimed Result: 9 or 10 tricks The Facts: North claimed, saying "I take your last trump". The Director: Ruled that North may well have forgotten about the extra outstanding trump. The Director found that North would execute a play that leads to 10 tricks 2 times in 3. Ruling:Score adjusted to Both sides receive: 66.7% of 4S= by North (NS +420) plus 33.3% of 4S-1 by North (NS -50) Relevant Laws: Law 70A, 70C3 Law 12C3, Code of Practice enabling Tournament Director to award Adjusted Scores under Law 12C3. North/South appealed. Present: All players except East, and the Captain of Iceland The Players: North/South spoke through their Captain, who was also the scorer at the table, and he had witnessed the facts. North had wished to speed up play by claiming when West had been thinking about the return. It was clear to North that he knew trumps had been 4-0. After all, he had noticed the bad break, and had already finessed once. If he had thought West had only one trump left, surely North would have cashed the S10 before playing the second round of Clubs. When asked if he had claimed for 10 or 11 tricks, North stated he had not pronounced a number at the table. West told the Committee that he had been thinking after taking the CK. Then North had claimed with the statement "I take your last trump". He had not wanted to call the Director then, but asked declarer "how many trumps do you think I have?", to which North had replied "one". This fact had not been told to the Director at the table, but North did not dispute it before the Committee. The Committee: Began by stating that the Director's ruling was wrong in Law. Since there is no assigned adjusted score to be given, Law 12C3 cannot be applied. [Nigel] Thank you Richard! To players, such proceedings are mind-boggling and surreal. And hilarious unless you're a victim. A player might mistake this case to be one of Maciej's "simple book rulings" of rule 4S-1. The director misused 12C3 to deny E-W redress. Paradoxically, *N-S* appealed! The committee was more generous to the law-breaker! Such amazing rulings are a tribute to the law's complexity and sophistication :) Also a triumph for the law-makers' delegation of responsibility, and their advocacy of subjective judgement :) Lastly, Herman's interpretation of 1997 claim law is vindicated :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 10 18:04:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 12:04:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: <4991A3D8.7080200@aol.com> References: <4991A3D8.7080200@aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:57:12 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Hola Robert! I have a problem with your paragraph (below) starting with > "Scenario 2". But perhaps I have misunderstood you. You say (in this > case/scenario) that declarer has claimed for the rest of the tricks. > That means he believes that all of his cards are high, including the > diamond. This is quite different from the first claim and makes the > decision that it would not be normal to play diamonds first irrelevant. Right. The laws should say that "normal" is defined in terms of the claimer's apparently awareness of the hand. Then, what you describe above and below would not only follow current practice of directors and most ACs, it would also clearly and obviously follow the laws. > If he believes that all of his cards are high there is no reason he > would not play the diamond first. (What he says after the TD has been > called may not be considered.) Playing the diamond first if he believes > all of the cards are high seems just as normal to me as other lines. So, > in my opinion, only 2 tricks for him. Once again I'd like to note that > the laws are very clear as to how one should claim and it isn't > difficult, so why not do it right? JE > Robert Frick schrieb: >> For example, declarer plays out the hand, in no trump, and comes down to >> two good spades, one good heart, and a losing diamond. There are three >> normal plays for the remaining tricks: spade-spade-heart-diamond, >> spade-heart-spade-diamond, and heart-spade-spade-diamond. >> >> Now suppose this declarer makes a careless claim for the remaining three >> tricks. The opps dispute, you are called, and declarer proposed that he >> is >> going to cash his hearts and spades and then lose a diamond. >> >> You wish he had said this sooner, but you still have to rule. Law 70D >> says >> that you cannot accept any successful line of play not embraced in the >> original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line >> of >> play that would be less successful. But all three normal lines of play >> lead to the same result, making 3 of 4 tricks. So you have to rule that >> he >> gets three tricks. >> >> Scenario 2 is that declarer claims for all of the remaining tricks. As >> before, the opps dispute, you come to the table, declarer (who has now >> had >> time to think about the error of his ways) says he is going to cash two >> spades, one heart, and then his diamond. How should you rule? Well, his >> stated line of play leads to three tricks, not four. All of the other >> normal lines of play lead to the same result. So you have to give him >> making three. (If he leads a diamond first, he gets only two tricks, but >> we have already established that that is not a normal line of play.) >> >> There are two exceptions. One is if you define normal in terms of his >> apparent awareness of the hand at the time of the claim. I don't exactly >> know how you read the rules to get to it. L70D2 doesn't say that >> "normal" >> should be determined this way, and it even has a footnote to help >> describe >> normal. >> >> But if you do that, then any order of the play of the cards is >> plausible, >> reasonable, and "normal". So, wosrt case being that declarer would lose >> two tricks if diamonds were played first, you would give declarer only >> two >> tricks. >> >> The other exception is to keep this definiton of normal but decide that, >> with two good spades and a good heart, playing a losing diamond before >> this is "normal". At least some declarers are going to lose track, and >> maybe we don't have to consider that our declarer is an expert. Perhaps >> you think it is 1 time in 20 and you feel that is often enough to be >> deemed normal. Both are probably wrong, but anyway... >> >> So you don't give the person who claimed 4 tricks his three tricks, you >> give him two tricks. But now return to the player who claimed 3 tricks >> and >> stated the correct order of play. You have decided that playing a >> diamond >> first is normal, so you give him only two tricks. And, you pretty much >> have to feel as comfortable with this ruling as you do with ruling that >> the player who claimed all of the tricks gets only two tricks (because >> you >> are ignoring the awareness of the situation suggested by the claim). >> >> Summary. What I am trying to do is show what it would be like if >> directors >> ruled using a definition of normal based only on the hand and play (and >> perhaps the expertise of the claimer), ignoring the awareness displayed >> in >> the claiming statement. I know that in practice most declarers and ACs >> use >> this awareness when determining "normal". As noted, I don't know how one >> would justify that using just the laws. >> >> Bob >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Tue Feb 10 18:17:02 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 18:17:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN><49905474.8040205@skynet.be> <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN><000701c98b1e$26065a00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4991429F.8020307@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c98ba3$6428dee0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Sorry Henk, but there are some things that need saying. > > Bystry wrote: > > > > I'm quite surprised that Herman enthusiastically encourages the players to > > perform illegal/bordering on illegal actions, but doesn't encourage fully > > lawful, correct, trouble-saving action which is always issuing a claim > > statement (additionally the laws say that it "should" be done). > > > > Maciej is again confusing the two types of claim rulings: Not at all. I didn't write about the present case (this topic is closed), I was refering to your numerous statements from the past regarding the careless claimers, I could quote them when needed. Here's one from 2000 EBL Appeals casebook: [Herman] In cases like this, it is important to find out what goes on in the mind of declarer. Did he miss something and make an error, or did he neglect to complete his analysis? I believe that in this case it is the latter. Declarer felt that he had all tricks, and he claimed, perhaps somewhat hastily. I do believe that when this declarer will play the hand, he will realize that he needs his two clubs to be good, and (probably) remembering the club-showing double by South, finesse the ten. I do not believe that this declarer was unaware that the ten was out and thought that his hand was high. After all, he proved this in his subsequent statement/play. This, together with the almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule in favour of claimer in this one. But of course the Director and Committee may have come to other conclusions as to West's state of mind. [/Herman] This shows the main disagreement between us, not the infamous "trumps first/last" case. You want to read the misclaimer's mind and if you decide that he just claimed carelessly without counting his tricks and without thinking thoroughly about the correct order to play his tricks, you want to rule in his favour. Sorry, but I could be mild for the player who forgot or miscounted something, this happens to all of us and is never deliberate, but I would be extremely harsh if the player admitted that he was too lazy to ensure that his claim was correct. I would even support PPs in such cases, and that could be the only reason for mindreading, otherwise I simply apply "normal" on the basis of forgetting everything which is possible. > The rest of this mail is again too personal, so I won't answer. I'd wish > Henk would be as harsh on others as he is apparently on me. I wanted to loosen the atmosphere a bit, but apparently I failed. Elementary rules of communication state that it is a duty of the writer to be properly understood, so it is my 100% fault I wasn't. Therefore I sincerely apologize, I didn't intend to offend you in any way. Nevertheless calling Henk in nearly every email, in which somebody shows any bit of disagreement with you, is in my opinion unfounded. > Herman. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 10 19:00:51 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:00:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? References: Message-ID: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> > For example, declarer plays out the hand, in no trump, and comes down to > two good spades, one good heart, and a losing diamond. There are three > normal plays for the remaining tricks: spade-spade-heart-diamond, > spade-heart-spade-diamond, and heart-spade-spade-diamond. > > Now suppose this declarer makes a careless claim for the remaining three > tricks. The opps dispute, you are called, and declarer proposed that he is > going to cash his hearts and spades and then lose a diamond. > > You wish he had said this sooner, but you still have to rule. Law 70D says > that you cannot accept any successful line of play not embraced in the > original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line of > play that would be less successful. But all three normal lines of play > lead to the same result, making 3 of 4 tricks. So you have to rule that he > gets three tricks. I'm not sure that I understand, did the declarer miscounted that he has only three cards left or did he claimed 3 out of 4 (you wrote "careless claim")? In the first case I would decide that "remaining" is important, not "three", so it was a misclaim - two tricks to him. In the second case the claim looks valid, but I'd ensure that it was 100% clear for the declarer that his diamond was a loser, not spade or heart, by listening to him and analyzing the play. > Scenario 2 is that declarer claims for all of the remaining tricks. As > before, the opps dispute, you come to the table, declarer (who has now had > time to think about the error of his ways) says he is going to cash two > spades, one heart, and then his diamond. How should you rule? Well, his > stated line of play leads to three tricks, not four. All of the other > normal lines of play lead to the same result. So you have to give him > making three. (If he leads a diamond first, he gets only two tricks, but > we have already established that that is not a normal line of play.) This is a simple case - two tricks. Now to both scenarios - you seem not to understand claim laws. First - the declarer's statement is "I have the rest", everything he says to you after you come to the table is not a claim statement. Read the laws, the TD orders the player to *repeat* his statement, not give a new one (unless the opponents disturbed his claim at the time). Second - "normal" is used in reference to the "class of player involved". You seem to define "class" only as "level of expertise", but I don't see any reason to do that (it would be written explicitly if so intented). "Class" may certainly be used as "3: a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes" (MW). The player claiming all the remaining tricks belongs to the class of players who forgot that their diamond was a loser, so for the players of this class playing diamond is "normal". Whereas the player claiming 3/4 belongs to the class of players knowing that one of their cards is a loser. Then we have to decide whether he belongs to the class of players knowing that a diamond is a loser, or not. Usually there is no need for mindreading, analysis of the earlier play should suffice (if not, than we have "a doubtful point" and we should rule against the declarer). > Bob Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 10 19:15:24 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:15:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be><6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> <499141A6.6000502@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003601c98bab$8b822340$15844c59@chello.pl> > Well John, then just change the two 10% in my reasoning to a 15% large > and 5% small trump (you) or vice-versa (Maxine) and do the maths again. > The Probst cheat will always be able to play the same way that I rule, > so he cannot gain from my ruling. Quite the reverse, since my ruling > will be based on the worst play of the side suits, while the "cheat" is > able to choose one of the suits - if he chooses better than I do, he > gains over my ruling. > > Check it out, John, it's true. > I like your argument about Probst cheats very much, but you have to > admit it works in both directions. If a Probst cheat cannot gain over my > ruling, my ruling should not be called illegal. Herman is right - a cheat cannot gain anything by calling a TD in such situation, he can always apply TDs prefered "normal" line himself. I can imagine some more complicated situations in which the cheat may try to benefit from deliberately prematurely claiming without a statement (or misclaiming), but those are rather exceptions. The only problem with Herman's approach is that all the claimers who forgot about a small trump lose an unnecessary trick (even with A of trumps and 2 of a side suit, *that* looks irrational) and all the claimers who forgot about a high trump don't lose anything. For me it is grossly unjust, forgetting about high trumps is more of a proof of losing contact with reality, yet such players are deemed by Herman to play carefully and protect themselves from that forgetting, whereas forgetting about small ones is quite common, may easily happen in complicated earlier plays, so why are such misclaimers not deemed to play carefully and check for the lurkers? Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 10 20:20:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:20:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00:51 -0500, Bystry wrote: >> For example, declarer plays out the hand, in no trump, and comes down to >> two good spades, one good heart, and a losing diamond. There are three >> normal plays for the remaining tricks: spade-spade-heart-diamond, >> spade-heart-spade-diamond, and heart-spade-spade-diamond. >> >> Now suppose this declarer makes a careless claim for the remaining three >> tricks. The opps dispute, you are called, and declarer proposed that he >> is >> going to cash his hearts and spades and then lose a diamond. >> >> You wish he had said this sooner, but you still have to rule. Law 70D >> says >> that you cannot accept any successful line of play not embraced in the >> original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal line >> of >> play that would be less successful. But all three normal lines of play >> lead to the same result, making 3 of 4 tricks. So you have to rule that >> he >> gets three tricks. > > I'm not sure that I understand, did the declarer miscounted that he has > only > three cards left or did he claimed 3 out of 4 (you wrote "careless > claim")? Sorry, that wasn't clear at all. I meant that declarer claims for 3 of the four remaining tricks. The additional information ("I am cashing two spades and a heart then losing a diamond") was volunteered after the claim. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 10 15:57:50 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:57:50 +0000 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net> <002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net> [Maciej] No need to be sorry. I have nothing against your contributions, they can be as much worthy as those from any other BLMLer. And I don't disqualify hearsay evidence - as they say "in every gossip there is a grain of truth". But if you want to see your accusations treated seriously, you simply *have* to provide objective evidence - illegally/very wrongly decided cases in which the relations between the parties and the TDs/ACs played any role. Without them you are acting as a preacher of Conspiracy Theory, as you were when accusing the TDs of deliberately issuing bad laws to have more work (and therefore more money, I assume) or when accusing the experts that they use "reverse hesitations" (so in fact they are cheats). I repeat - there are certainly bad rulings, incompetence, bias in bridge, as they are in real world. But those are impossible to be avoided, no system and no laws will change it, because there, at the end of the "chain", are humans - bridge players, TDs, AC members, and humans will screw up everything from time to time, that is our nature. [Nigel] I agree with Maciej that anecdotes and individual cases prove little. It would be better to collect proper statistics but this is hard fir a player to do. I tried to conduct an unofficial poll on David Stevenson's Bridgetalk site; but most of the replies were from directors, loyally defending the status quo. I have often advocated that legislative bodies experiment and collect evidence. Recently, the EBU conducted a poll. A welcome innovation (although I would have liked a wider range of questions and options). I repudiate Maciej's accusation that I preach "conspiracy theory". On the contrary, Maciej is happy to concede my central tenet: that players, directors, and legislators are (mostly) *human-beings* with human foibles. Player cheating and director corruption are so rare that I've not met them. But IMO, cases of rationalisation of "careless" law-braking by players and unconscious director-bias are more common. Maciej realistically predicts that Law-makers won't achieve perfection, no matter how they strive. Admittedly, players will continue to break laws and directors will sometimes make bad rulings. Nevertheless, current law seems conducive to such behaviour. Our game would be fairer and more fun if the laws were simpler, clearer, more objective, more complete, more coherent, and more deterrent. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 10 17:16:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:16:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Claim law In-Reply-To: <498888B6.6050702@talktalk.net> References: <49870CA4.9040304@talktalk.net> <000101c98554$6212b4f0$26381ed0$@no> <498737E0.2040209@talktalk.net> <4987B055.8040207@talktalk.net> <498888B6.6050702@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4991A847.9000600@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] Hi Nigel. What about if I claim to have all of the tricks, someone disputes the claim, and that gives me the idea that a trump might be out that I forgot about? What if I claim, someone disputes the claim, and that gives me the idea that I have miscounted my winners? I check and I have. These are the worry of the people who wrote the claim laws. I assume. [Nigel] I still maintain that on-line claim law is better. But on reflection, Robert's reply (and other comments about players claiming to resolve 2-way finesses and the like) have gradually changed my opinion about the detail. If a player makes a faulty claim, I belatedly accept that it may be hard to determine whether declarer is on a "fishing expedition". I believe that, where possible, the law should avoid requiring the director to "mind-read". Hence I now suggest that information from a defender's demeanour after a claim should be *authorised* to declarer, completely at the latter's risk. This simplifies the law but encourages claims; and speeds up the game. I'm sure that most defenders would still welcome the opportunity to play double-dummy; and they would rapidly learn not to "tip" their own hands. From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 10 22:07:21 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:07:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej] > No need to be sorry. I have nothing against your contributions, they can be > as much worthy as those from any other BLMLer. And I don't disqualify > hearsay evidence - as they say "in every gossip there is a grain of truth". > But if you want to see your accusations treated seriously, you simply *have* > to provide objective evidence - illegally/very wrongly decided cases in > which the relations between the parties and the TDs/ACs played any role. > Without them you are acting as a preacher of Conspiracy Theory, as you were > when accusing the TDs of deliberately issuing bad laws to have more work > (and therefore more money, I assume) or when accusing the experts that they > use "reverse hesitations" (so in fact they are cheats). > > I repeat - there are certainly bad rulings, incompetence, bias in bridge, as > they are in real world. But those are impossible to be avoided, no system > and no laws will change it, because there, at the end of the "chain", are > humans - bridge players, TDs, AC members, and humans will screw up > everything from time to time, that is our nature. > > > [Nigel] > I agree with Maciej that anecdotes and individual cases prove little. It would be better to collect proper statistics but this is hard fir a player to do. I tried to conduct an unofficial poll on David Stevenson's Bridgetalk site; but most of the replies were from directors, loyally defending the status quo. I have often advocated that legislative bodies experiment and collect evidence. Recently, the EBU conducted a poll. A welcome innovation (although I would have liked a wider range of questions and options). I fully agree that polls are useful, I advocate such myself. Polish Player's Committee (body consisting of representants of players having statutory rights in our NBO) recently open a forum for bridge players which serves mainly as a medium for collecting the opinions (although of course not only), which the PC will present later to our NBO if any wide agreement is found. More and more players start to participate, so I think it will be really useful. > I repudiate Maciej's accusation that I preach "conspiracy theory". On the contrary, Maciej is happy to concede my central tenet: that players, directors, and legislators are (mostly) *human-beings* with human foibles. Player cheating and director corruption are so rare that I've not met them. But IMO, cases of rationalisation of "careless" law-braking by players and unconscious director-bias are more common. There is a difference between "I/my friend encountered a pair of experts who applied reverse hesitation" and "nowadays experts apply reverse hesitations". First one is an anecdote, second one is a serious accusation regarding a large group of players. In my opinion totally unfounded accusation. I have no idea how often do you play against experts, for me it is common. I don't remember even one such case and I would be aware of it at least for the last 5 or so years (earlier I could overlook it). Anticipating your doubts - Polish experts are in no way more ethical than the other ones. > Maciej realistically predicts that Law-makers won't achieve perfection, no matter how they strive. Admittedly, players will continue to break laws and directors will sometimes make bad rulings. Nevertheless, current law seems conducive to such behaviour. Our game would be fairer and more fun if the laws were simpler, clearer, more objective, more complete, more coherent, and more deterrent. I fully agree with your statement. But it is too general. What do you mean by: - simpler - it is a reasonable goal, but very hard (maybe the hardest) to achieve. Bridge is very complicated because it is a partnership and mind game. UI concept is something unknown in other games of which I'm aware and there are no easy solutions. Disclosure - another one not easy to solve and conflicting with UI. To be fair I can see only two ways to make laws simpler - automatic loss of a given number of tricks/PP for an infraction or a huge "equity" umbrella - after every infraction TDs simply adjust to what they think is fair. The second approach could work, but would be contrary to your other wishes, the first one could work, but would be grossly unjust - the penalties would have to be very harsh (to stop cheats from free gains) and that would not be accepted by a majority of players, believe me (although I wouldn't mind personally). - clearer - here I fully agree. There are notions used in TFLB which should be strictly defined so that they fulfill the role given them by the laws. Dictionary meanings are sometimes useless and contrary to the intention of the lawmakers. Some laws are written in too complicated language, probably to reduce the volume. But that leads to the situations in which we have to interpret declarer as his own partner. I'd advice longer text, but better structure - definitions in every law when needed (especially instead of footnotes), more articles and subarticles, with appropriate examples and lists of things which the given law covers, clear references to other laws, the least brackets, commas, semi-colons, complicated sentences the possible. 2007 revision was a step in the right direction, but the longer and deeper you search, the more deficiencies are still found. - more objective - sounds fine, but removing any dependence on the level of expertise (whether of a given player or an event) would lead to unfair rulings. The expert who is fouled and deprived of the option to play his own optimal contract deserves giving him a trick more because of a squeeze (obvious for him), but a bunny isn't because he never ever performed any squeeze in his whole career. LAs are different for players of different skills, hesitations suggest different actions (as in balancing after 1NT opening), PPs have to be dependent on players' expertise and knowledge about laws. But I would support removing "class of player" from claim laws, experts should be more responsible for careless claiming, so they should live with simple "irrationality" safeguard - no squeezes, no throw-ins, no "obvious" knowledge about the deal etc, only really irrational (the same for Mrs. G and Meckwell) plays should be excluded. - more complete - heh, this is in part contradictory to "simpler". And if you have incorporating defaults for RAs optionalities in mind, then I wouldn't protest, but I see no sense forcing that. Remember, there is always WBF CoC which shows exactly those defaults and every country may use it. - more coherent - I don't see any problems with it, rather lack of clearness is guilty. But more proof-reading, especially from logicians from outside of bridge would be beneficial (it's easier for them to catch errors then for bridge players who "know" how to understand some things). - more deterrent - I personally agree, but unfortunately the present trend is in the other direction. I hope that the lawmakers will wake up when they'll see a significant increase in a number of infractions. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 10 23:04:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:04:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] L'Heure zero [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002901c98b5c$484010a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: H.L. Mencken (1880-1956): "Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice." Richard Hills: Interrupt. Yes, the Director's ruling was wrong in Law, but not any Appeals Committee has the power to so rule. Law 93B3. Instead, it was the responsibility of the Director in charge to correct the error. Law 93B1. ........................ (cut)......................................... +=+ (Grattan) I imagine it depends how one understands the following in relation to the 1997 code of laws and the footnote to 93B3: Tenerife Conditions of Contest (extract): "The Appeals Committee, also acting as the national authority as meant in Law 93C, shall have the power to determine all facts and decide all questions of law, whether under the Laws, the Proprieties or these Rules, arising from any appeal or investigation and its findings and decisions will be final. The Appeals Committee may confirm, reverse, vary or modify the findings or decisions of a Tournament Director (except those foreseen by Law 93B3) and remove, increase or vary any penalty which may have been imposed, or substitute a different class of penalty or an adjusted score." +=+ Richard Hills: This Tenerife Condition of Contest seems to me to be of dubious legality under the 1997 Lawbook, since I do not believe that the 1997 footnote to Law 93B: "Zonal organisations may establish differing conditions of appeals for special contests." could ever permit the abolition of the 1997 Law 97C: "After the preceding remedies have been exhausted, further appeal may be taken to the national authority." especially since the 1997 Law 93C was _not_ footnoted. However, it is much clearer under the 2007 Lawbook that an Appeals Committee _may not_ act as an unappellable Judge, Jury and Executioner, since the 2007 footnote to Law 93 states: "* The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action." and fundamental to all national legal systems is the concept of "natural justice". Hence the 2008 revision of the WBF Code of Practice clarifies that, even for international tournaments, the Regulating Authority (formerly known as National Authority) should be an entirely distinct body from the Appeals Committee, not one and the same. WBF Code of Practice (October 2008 version), page 5: Appeal to Regulating Authority No appeal to the Regulating Authority should be entertained if the prior stages of ruling and appeal have not been pursued and exhausted. It is legitimate for the Regulating Authority to set some limitation on matters that it will hear (but see the Law 93 C footnote above); it is a widespread practice, commended by the WBF, that the Regulating Authority will not review value judgements except where the appeal committee has made a judgement that can have no basis in its findings of the facts of a case. However, the Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action (Law 93 footnote). Debatable matters of law and/or regulation are valid questions for the Regulating Authority. Under Law 93 C 2 the Director in charge or the Appeals Committee may refer a matter to the Regulating Authority. At international level the WBF urges that arrangements be instituted for an appeal to be considered against the decision of an appeal committee. However, the nature of international tournaments is such that appeals of this category should be restricted; it is suggested that to be heard such an appeal should be certified by one of a small number of nominated senior and expert individuals to be worthy of consideration. If this certificate is obtained it is recommended that the appeal be heard by a joint meeting of, say, the Rules and Regulations Committee with the Laws Committee under the chairmanship of the President or of his nominee for the purpose. Where this procedure applies, as for its own tournaments is henceforward the case with the WBF, the certifying individual is empowered to dismiss the appeal if he/she does not find its content appropriate for the attention of the joint committees. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 11 02:01:10 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 12:01:10 +1100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: [sensible anti-Conspiracy Theory statements snipped] >Disclosure - another one not easy to solve and conflicting >with UI. Fowler, "Modern English Usage": "_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. "*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is necessary because without it murders would increase, and that democracy must be the best form of government because the majority are always right." Richard Hills: Unintentionally ("without design") giving incorrect disclosure of partnership methods is an infraction. But unintentionally ("without design") creating unauthorised information is not an infraction, so there is not any possible conflict between the requirement to avoid creation of MI, and the requirement to obey Law 16. Richard Hills quibbles: What about Laws 73D2 and 73F? Is not creating UI deemed to be an infraction in those circumstances? Richard Hills bashes: Richard deliberately goes around my argument again; this is just plain silly As always Richard has not thought everything through to its logical conclusion; the only reason Richard is writing this is because we disagree. Richard has never even attempted to prove me wrong. He has repeated the same arguments over and over again. Please don't go turning my words around and don't use false logic. Drop this argument now. It is wrong. Richard Hills apologises: Yes, my Law 73D2 and 73F example was really too silly. I was inviting a case just to find an argument -- too crazy for words. I should not criticise Richard for repeating over and over that he's right. All Richard's posts contain detailed logical reasoning as to why he believes I am wrong. Mine do not always contain such reasoning, mere unfounded repeats. (sic) Richard Hills bashes again: Richard's claim that I am always logical is most certainly untrue. This is not just a personal preference but a reasoned personal preference. Please all readers, read this. It contains an important point many of you need to realise. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 11 03:20:18 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Director, darling! ("expert bias") [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001001c98bef$48f17c80$15844c59@chello.pl> > Maciej Bystry: > > [sensible anti-Conspiracy Theory statements snipped] > > >Disclosure - another one not easy to solve and conflicting > >with UI. > > Fowler, "Modern English Usage": > > "_Petitio principii_ or 'begging the question'. The > fallacy of founding a conclusion on a basis that as much > needs to be proved as the conclusion itself. > > "*Arguing in a circle* is a common variety of p.p.; other > (not circular) examples are that capital punishment is > necessary because without it murders would increase, and > that democracy must be the best form of government because > the majority are always right." > > Richard Hills: > > Unintentionally ("without design") giving incorrect > disclosure of partnership methods is an infraction. But > unintentionally ("without design") creating unauthorised > information is not an infraction, so there is not any > possible conflict between the requirement to avoid > creation of MI, and the requirement to obey Law 16. I do not wish to interrupt the bemusing Richard-Richard dialogue, but I have to. If you concentrated on actually understanding (and thinking over) my statement instead of trying to nitpickingly catch me for arguing in circle, you would realize that the disclosure has to be provided, but it also has to be *obtained*. And following that discovery you would realize that obtaining disclosure is sometimes impossible without restricting partnership's options. That's what I call a conflict between UI and disclosure and you should be aware of that fact after numerous topics regarding questions, alert rules etc. Your reasoning from above is of course correct, but I have no idea why are you writing about infractions at all. I just presented two difficult concepts being fundamental for bridge and pointed out that apart from many problems caused by them separately, there are additional problems caused by their conflict. Only further in my statement I wrote about approaches to infractions, but as I have read it now I see I was imprecise - "penalty" approach won't of course solve the problems like UI or disclosure (full "equity" approach neither), and I forgot to add that instead of "judgment" rulings there would have to be artificial defined procedures, like automatic 80%/20% or such. That doesn't change the implausibility of such approach - it would be usually unduly harsh and sometimes beneficial to the lawbreakers, but I had to clarify that point. > Richard Hills quibbles: > > What about Laws 73D2 and 73F? Is not creating UI deemed > to be an infraction in those circumstances? > > Richard Hills bashes: > > Richard deliberately goes around my argument again; this > is just plain silly > > As always Richard has not thought everything through to > its logical conclusion; the only reason Richard is writing > this is because we disagree. > > Richard has never even attempted to prove me wrong. He > has repeated the same arguments over and over again. > Please don't go turning my words around and don't use > false logic. > > Drop this argument now. It is wrong. > > Richard Hills apologises: > > Yes, my Law 73D2 and 73F example was really too silly. I > was inviting a case just to find an argument -- too crazy > for words. > > I should not criticise Richard for repeating over and over > that he's right. All Richard's posts contain detailed > logical reasoning as to why he believes I am wrong. Mine > do not always contain such reasoning, mere unfounded > repeats. (sic) > > Richard Hills bashes again: > > Richard's claim that I am always logical is most certainly > untrue. This is not just a personal preference but a > reasoned personal preference. > > Please all readers, read this. It contains an important > point many of you need to realise. Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 11 03:31:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:31:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] The best of WBF bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: >>and then there are at least 3 AC members of 2001. >Snap. > >And then there are at least 3 AC members of 1997. > >http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks.html > >St Louis ACBL Appeals Casebook, Fall 1997, Case Forty-Three (Claim) >From 2003 to 2008 the WBF Code of Practice had indicative Appeals Committee deals attached. These were not included in the 2008 revision because: (a) they had become partially obsolete due to the changes introduced in the 2007 Lawbook, and (b) the intent was that, once finished, Ton Kooijman's Appendix to the Lawbook would replace the Appeals Examples as the WBF Code of Practice Attachment. Note: Some blmlers may have overlooked, in the flurry of other emails, Grattan's announcement that a work-in-progress Appendix (current status: Ton's personal opinion) can be downloaded from the WBF website. The WBF CoP examples, despite being technically obsolete, are still available for download, for information, at: http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/Appeals_Material/Appealsexamples.pdf One of the WBF CoP examples, number 11, is in fact the 1997 St. Louis claim that I discovered independently. The official 27 November 2003 WBF comment on the St. Louis claim was: "WBF Comment: statements clarifying a claim should be made with care. In this case there is a lesson that such words as ' I'm up ' may be taken to reflect a belief that all the remaining cards are high." It seems to me that this 2003 WBF Comment, being two years later than comments made by the 2001 EBL AC, would necessarily over-ride any purported statements of principle by that EBL AC, especially as the EBL fully adopted the WBF CoP as a regulation for the EBL's own (international) events. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 11 04:06:37 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:06:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage Message-ID: <001101c98bf5$c12a6800$15844c59@chello.pl> I have just found something which left me uncomfortable. First try to think about the following problem: Bhutan Opening (definition) - 5+ clubs, void in major, one round forcing, described in many books, everywhere in the same way 1) In Belize this method degenerated and is now played as 5+ clubs and shortness in major. The pair from Burundi appears to play in Belize, during the deal they receive an explanation "Bhutan Opening" and misdefend subsequently thinking that the opener had a void instead of singleton. 2) In Belize this method is used correctly, but in Burundi it degenerated similarly. The pair from Burundi appears to play in Belize and, guess what, they explain their convention as "Bhutan Opening", their opponents misdefend etc. Would you adjust in neither case, only in 1), only in 2), in both? Does it depend on anything more? Now to the point, David Stevenson from 2006 EBL Appeals casebook: [David] Perhaps it is not entirely clear to our foreign commentators that 2nd and 4th is the common name for standard English leads, which include low from three to an honour. For example, this situation could have occurred in a similar way if we followed Australian regulations: one pair would have said at the start of the round "We play 2nd and 4th leads and ." and their opponents had stopped listening after hearing "2nd and 4th". and "Second and fourth" means, to nearly all English players, the standard approach to leads, ie second from a suit of three cards or more not headed by an honour, fourth from a suit of three cards or more headed by an honour: it is understood that high from a doubleton is normal. [/David] EBU Appeals Committee: [EBU AC] We recommend to N/S that they draw attention to their leads because although a description of 2nd and 4th may be accurate it is not what is most commonly understood in England. [/EBU AC] EBU L&C Committee: [EBU LC] Players should understand their responsibilities when playing very unusual methods (such as leading low from doubletons or the middle card from three to an honour) and should take particular care to explain their methods fully. [/EBU LC] So here we are. Technically the explanation "second/fourth" is fully adequate, it correctly describes the leads from all the possible holdings, excluding of course singletons and some specific holdings with honours (like Hx or HHx). It is played and fully understood as such in Poland and I'm sure in other countries too. I use such an explanation online and it never caused any problems. But apparently in England the method degenerated or is simply incorrectly called, English leads are in fact first/second/third/fourth. I fully accept that if the player from abroad comes to England he has to learn and obey their regulations, it is also beneficial to him to understand their bidding style. But is he obliged to know about their idiosyncratic habits? Is EBU LC correct that despite the fact that the method is properly described, the users should ensure that it's not highly unusual and that their opponents do not incorrectly name some other method in the same way? I want to stress that the explainers were not ruled against in this case and EBL AC comments look like a mild recommendation, which is appropriate. But taking the whole attitude into consideration it is quite possible that another AC could rule differently. I'd welcome your opinions, especially from English contributors. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 11 04:36:18 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:36:18 +0000 Subject: [blml] Design criteria In-Reply-To: <000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net> <000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499247B2.6030704@talktalk.net> [Nigel] Our game would be fairer and more fun if the laws were simpler, clearer, more objective, more complete, more coherent, and more deterrent. [Maciej] I fully agree with your statement. But it is too general... - simpler - it is a reasonable goal, but very hard (maybe the hardest) to achieve. Bridge is very complicated because it is a partnership and mind game. UI concept is something unknown in other games of which I'm aware and there are no easy solutions. Disclosure - another one not easy to solve and conflicting with UI. To be fair I can see only two ways to make laws simpler - automatic loss of a given number of tricks/PP for an infraction or a huge "equity" umbrella - after every infraction TDs simply adjust to what they think is fair. The second approach could work, but would be contrary to your other wishes, the first one could work, but would be grossly unjust - the penalties would have to be very harsh (to stop cheats from free gains) and that would not be accepted by a majority of players, believe me (although I wouldn't mind personally). [Nige2] I've advanced *specific* practical suggestions, all intended to comply with the above criteria :) In particular, all are simple -- some BLMLers opine they are sinple-minded :) IMO challenging and enjoyable games have been defined with a few simple rules. Although I agree that we need quite a lot of rules to preserve the nature of Bridge, especially its wonderful partnership element. [Maciej] - clearer - here I fully agree. There are notions used in TFLB which should be strictly defined so that they fulfill the role given them by the laws. Dictionary meanings are sometimes useless and contrary to the intention of the lawmakers. Some laws are written in too complicated language, probably to reduce the volume. But that leads to the situations in which we have to interpret declarer as his own partner. I'd advice longer text, but better structure - definitions in every law when needed (especially instead of footnotes), more articles and subarticles, with appropriate examples and lists of things which the given law covers, clear references to other laws, the least brackets, commas, semi-colons, complicated sentences the possible. 2007 revision was a step in the right direction, but the longer and deeper you search, the more deficiencies are still found. [Nige3] Many BLMERS have suggested improvements in clarity. For example: more terms defined in the *glossary*. Consistent usage - no elegant variation. Resolution of ambiguities, real and imagined, from discussion groups like this. Early *review* and proof-reading by players, translators -- and people who don't play bridge. A *decision-table* or *flow-chart* layout - preferably as "intelligent" pages accessible from a mobile phone or PDA. Illustrative examples in place -- especially examples of *border-line* decisions. [Maciej] - more objective - sounds fine, but removing any dependence on the level of expertise (whether of a given player or an event) would lead to unfair rulings. The expert who is fouled and deprived of the option to play his own optimal contract deserves giving him a trick more because of a squeeze (obvious for him), but a bunny isn't because he never ever performed any squeeze in his whole career. LAs are different for players of different skills, hesitations suggest different actions (as in balancing after 1NT opening), PPs have to be dependent on players' expertise and knowledge about laws. But I would support removing "class of player" from claim laws, experts should be more responsible for careless claiming, so they should live with simple "irrationality" safeguard - no squeezes, no throw-ins, no "obvious" knowledge about the deal etc, only really irrational (the same for Mrs. G and Meckwell) plays should be excluded. [Nige4] We agree to differ here. Subjectivity is unavoidable but I feel that it should be minimal. I think "class of player" is irrelevant to the *new* claim law? [Maciej] - more complete - heh, this is in part contradictory to "simpler". And if you have incorporating defaults for RAs optionalities in mind, then I wouldn't protest, but I see no sense forcing that. Remember, there is always WBF CoC which shows exactly those defaults and every country may use it. - more coherent - I don't see any problems with it, rather lack of clearness is guilty. But more proof-reading, especially from logicians from outside of bridge would be beneficial (it's easier for them to catch errors then for bridge players who "know" how to understand some things). [Nige5] IMO the law-book should provide *default* rules for all aspects of the game. it would be easier for players to comply with the rules of Bridge and club-directors to enforce them if there was a single local document to consult; it would encompass WBF law, WBF minutes and interpretations, WBF Coc or local regulations and interpretations, and so on. This would be less daunting for the reader if inconsistency and duplication were excised and corrections inserted *in-place*. [Maciej] - more deterrent - I personally agree, but unfortunately the present trend is in the other direction. I hope that the lawmakers will wake up when they'll see a significant increase in a number of infractions. [Nige6] We seemm to have more areas of agreement than disagreement :) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 11 04:52:41 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:52:41 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net> <000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> [Maciej] There is a difference between "I/my friend encountered a pair of experts who applied reverse hesitation" and "nowadays experts apply reverse hesitations". First one is an anecdote, second one is a serious accusation regarding a large group of players. In my opinion totally unfounded accusation. I have no idea how often do you play against experts, for me it is common. I don't remember even one such case and I would be aware of it at least for the last 5 or so years (earlier I could overlook it). Anticipating your doubts - Polish experts are in no way more ethical than the other ones. [Nigel] Maciej has resuscitated an issue that interests me. I've opened a new thread because it's irrelevant to the original topic. I accept that our experiences differ. Here are two examples of what Maciej calls my "accusations". For the sake of argument, please assume that pass is not constructive, in what follows: An expert hesitates in a high level competitive auction. This unauthorised information handicaps his partner, who must lean over backwards to avoid an action so suggested, if there is a logical alternative. Now an expert hesitater will stretch to double or bid, rather than stymie his partner by passing. Hence when an expert hesitates and finally passes he usually has a hand unsuitable for action. Typcally, the hand was not really worth the thought devoted to it. This usually benefits the partnership. His partner now takes action only if he judges it to be so clear-cut, that he can defend it to a committee. Thus, I argue that an expert hesitation followed by a pass usually suggests a *pass* by partner :) But I've not encountered such a ruling. Is this in a murky area of law? Let's steer closer the wind. A player hesitates and passes; then his partner bids on a marginal hand. There may be several possible reasons for the hesitation. Some players tend to tank before *bidding* on. Others are reluctant to risk a penalty *double*. The former may suggest a pass by partner but the latter may suggest a bid. A director may judge that the hesitater's trance could be *equally* for *either* reason; so the hesitator did not restrict his partner's legal options. I contend, however, that, usually, an experienced expert partnership *know* each other's habits :) So, does this open another lacuna that might tempt an expert in play, rather than law? Maciej may have met few such cases in his expert experience. But my concerns are shared by some other players. Maciej may even think that we imagine all this. And he may be right to dismiss our suspicion as speculation because we haven't attended the director-course on mind-reading :) Our experience, however, is that hesitations often result in director calls, rulings, and unhappy players. There's no simple solution that will satisfy most of us. A suggested law, that players might better understand, is to penalise UI *itelf*, rather than its alleged *use*. For example, we could introduce chess-clocks or egg-timers, that automatically penalise a call or play before 5 seconds or after 10 seconds. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 11 05:04:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 15:04:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001101c98bf5$c12a6800$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Maciej Bystry: >..... >Technically the explanation "second/fourth" is fully adequate, >..... >I'd welcome your opinions, especially from English contributors. Sir Richard, Lord Hills, Knight of the Bath Coup: Since I was resident in London during the winter of 1963/1964, at the formative age when I was first learning to speak (therefore I still retain traces of a plummy posh accent), I consider myself an honorary Englishman who goes out in the noonday sun. My original EBU appeals casebook opinion -> >>...The uncommon North-South agreement to always play second and >>fourth is of almost equal technical merit to the more common >>agreement to always play third and fifth. >> >>But the uncommon North-South agreement obviously has the non- >>technical merit of surprise value... My follow-up opinion -> A procedural penalty on the EBU powers-that-be for a very poorly designed system card. The ABF system card has three clearly differentiated listings: * Four or more to an honour * From four small * From three cards (no honour) each of which include a variety of popular checkboxes, plus also each contains a space for "Other". So blind-siding with a technically accurate but very misleading explanation of an unusual method could not legally occur Down Under (especially since unusual and frequently occurring methods have mandatory written and verbal Pre-Alerts). 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 Feb 11 06:46:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:46:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Apocryphal historical/scientific method/logical anecdote: An old-school philosopher correctly used logic to refute Galileo -> 1. The human body has seven orifices. 2. Therefore there are seven planets. 3. Therefore the additional four planets (the Galilean satellites) do not exist. An old-school Guthrie correctly used logic to refute Bystry -> >An expert hesitates in a high level competitive auction. This >unauthorised information handicaps his partner, who must lean >over backwards to avoid an action so suggested, if there is a >logical alternative. Now an expert hesitater will stretch to >double or bid, rather than stymie his partner by passing. Hence >when an expert hesitates and finally passes he usually has a hand >unsuitable for action. Typically, the hand was not really worth >the thought devoted to it. This usually benefits the partnership. >His partner now takes action only if he judges it to be so clear- >cut, that he can defend it to a committee. Thus, I argue that an >expert hesitation followed by a pass usually suggests a *pass* by >partner :) But I've not encountered such a ruling. > >Is this in a murky area of law? Richard Hills: No, a murkless failure of Nigel to apply the scientific method (i.e. checking whether real-world expert practices correspond with armchair reasoning, rather than the old-school assumption that "all swans are white" logic must be murkless), plus a murkless enthymeme error. Wikipedia analysis of a notorious enthymeme: "The glove doesn't fit [the defendant], so you must acquit." The complete syllogism would be: If evidence does not fit the defendant, then acquittal is required (major premise - assumed) The glove doesn't fit the defendant. (minor premise - stated) The glove is evidence. (minor premise - assumed) Therefore, you must acquit the defendant. (conclusion - stated) Stating the argument in this extended form suggests the argument is incomplete. For example, one might be more likely to ask if the glove might have shrunk, ask how "fit" is determined, or ask about the meaning of the expression "the glove": What do you mean _the_ glove?. Richard's analysis of Nigel's enthymeme: Nigel's enthymeme glosses over this question: "Why would an expert, who has already invested some considerable time to analyse the correct decision, then waste that time investment by arbitrarily choosing between -1100 or -1050 rather than selecting -680?" 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 gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 11 10:26:44 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:26:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EEAD95-90F6-4E14-9333-7AADE62B35F1@btinternet.com> On 11 Feb 2009, at 04:04, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > A procedural penalty on the EBU powers-that-be for a very poorly > designed system card. > > The ABF system card has three clearly differentiated listings: > > * Four or more to an honour > * From four small > * From three cards (no honour) > > each of which include a variety of popular checkboxes, plus also > each contains a space for "Other". > The EBU convention card displays forty different holdings (half versus NT, half versus suit contracts), for which players indicate their usual lead from each holding. This discussion is not about the convention card, it's about what players say at the table as short-hand. It's not uncommon for players who are aware of the Polish method (a very small minority of English players) to say something like "fourth highest, second from bad suits". Gordon Rainsford From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 11 10:48:55 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:48:55 +0000 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage In-Reply-To: <001101c98bf5$c12a6800$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <001101c98bf5$c12a6800$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On 11 Feb 2009, at 03:06, Bystry wrote: > > > Now to the point, David Stevenson from 2006 EBL Appeals casebook: Actually from the EBU Appeals casebook, which makes it much more reasonable that "2nd & 4th" be understood in the English usage. > > [David] > > Perhaps it is not entirely clear to our foreign commentators that > 2nd and > 4th is the common name for standard English leads, which include > low from > three to an honour. For example, this situation could have occurred > in a > similar way if we followed Australian regulations: one pair would > have said > at the start of the round "We play 2nd and 4th leads and ." and their > opponents had stopped listening after hearing "2nd and 4th". > > and > > "Second and fourth" means, to nearly all English players, the standard > approach to leads, ie second from a suit of three cards or more not > headed > by an honour, fourth from a suit of three cards or more headed by > an honour: > it is understood that high from a doubleton is normal. > > [/David] > > EBU Appeals Committee: > > [EBU AC] > > We recommend to N/S that they draw attention to their leads because > although > a description of 2nd and 4th may be accurate it is not what is most > commonly > understood in England. > > [/EBU AC] > > EBU L&C Committee: > > [EBU LC] > > Players should understand their responsibilities when playing very > unusual > methods (such as leading low from doubletons or the middle card > from three > to an honour) and should take particular care to explain their methods > fully. > > [/EBU LC] > > So here we are. Technically the explanation "second/fourth" is fully > adequate, it correctly describes the leads from all the possible > holdings, > excluding of course singletons and some specific holdings with > honours (like > Hx or HHx). It is played and fully understood as such in Poland and > I'm sure > in other countries too. I use such an explanation online and it > never caused > any problems. But apparently in England the method degenerated or > is simply > incorrectly called, English leads are in fact first/second/third/ > fourth. It's not a degeneration of the Polish method - it's a modification of the "4th highest" method to lead "2nd highest from bad suits". > > I fully accept that if the player from abroad comes to England he > has to > learn and obey their regulations, it is also beneficial to him to > understand > their bidding style. But is he obliged to know about their > idiosyncratic > habits? Is EBU LC correct that despite the fact that the method is > properly > described, the users should ensure that it's not highly unusual and > that > their opponents do not incorrectly name some other method in the > same way? > > I want to stress that the explainers were not ruled against in this > case and > EBL AC comments look like a mild recommendation, which is > appropriate. But > taking the whole attitude into consideration it is quite possible that > another AC could rule differently. > > I'd welcome your opinions, especially from English contributors. As I indicated in my reply to Richard's post, the vast majority of English players are not even aware that the Polish method exists. Is England alone in this? How many other countries follow the Polish method of leading, and do they all describe it the same way? Gordon Rainsford From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 11 11:20:36 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:20:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4992A674.3010301@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > A > > Wikipedia analysis of a notorious enthymeme: > > "The glove doesn't fit [the defendant], so you must acquit." > > The complete syllogism would be: > > If evidence does not fit the defendant, then acquittal is > required (major premise - assumed) > > The glove doesn't fit the defendant. (minor premise - stated) > > The glove is evidence. (minor premise - assumed) > > Therefore, you must acquit the defendant. (conclusion - stated) > Methinks this is only the second part. The first part would be something like : If the defendant had done such-and-such, he would have used the glove, which should then fit him. Therefore, by contraposition, if the glove doesn't fit, the defendant should be declared innocent. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 11 15:19:41 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:19:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage In-Reply-To: References: <001101c98bf5$c12a6800$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 04:48:55 -0500, Gordon Rainsford wrote: > > On 11 Feb 2009, at 03:06, Bystry wrote: >> >> >> Now to the point, David Stevenson from 2006 EBL Appeals casebook: > > Actually from the EBU Appeals casebook, which makes it much more > reasonable that "2nd & 4th" be understood in the English usage. > >> >> [David] >> >> Perhaps it is not entirely clear to our foreign commentators that >> 2nd and >> 4th is the common name for standard English leads, which include >> low from >> three to an honour. For example, this situation could have occurred >> in a >> similar way if we followed Australian regulations: one pair would >> have said >> at the start of the round "We play 2nd and 4th leads and ." and their >> opponents had stopped listening after hearing "2nd and 4th". >> >> and >> >> "Second and fourth" means, to nearly all English players, the standard >> approach to leads, ie second from a suit of three cards or more not >> headed >> by an honour, fourth from a suit of three cards or more headed by >> an honour: >> it is understood that high from a doubleton is normal. >> >> [/David] >> >> EBU Appeals Committee: >> >> [EBU AC] >> >> We recommend to N/S that they draw attention to their leads because >> although >> a description of 2nd and 4th may be accurate it is not what is most >> commonly >> understood in England. >> >> [/EBU AC] >> >> EBU L&C Committee: >> >> [EBU LC] >> >> Players should understand their responsibilities when playing very >> unusual >> methods (such as leading low from doubletons or the middle card >> from three >> to an honour) and should take particular care to explain their methods >> fully. >> >> [/EBU LC] >> >> So here we are. Technically the explanation "second/fourth" is fully >> adequate, it correctly describes the leads from all the possible >> holdings, >> excluding of course singletons and some specific holdings with >> honours (like >> Hx or HHx). It is played and fully understood as such in Poland and >> I'm sure >> in other countries too. I use such an explanation online and it >> never caused >> any problems. But apparently in England the method degenerated or >> is simply >> incorrectly called, English leads are in fact first/second/third/ >> fourth. > > It's not a degeneration of the Polish method - it's a modification of > the "4th highest" method to lead "2nd highest from bad suits". > >> >> I fully accept that if the player from abroad comes to England he >> has to >> learn and obey their regulations, it is also beneficial to him to >> understand >> their bidding style. But is he obliged to know about their >> idiosyncratic >> habits? Is EBU LC correct that despite the fact that the method is >> properly >> described, the users should ensure that it's not highly unusual and >> that >> their opponents do not incorrectly name some other method in the >> same way? >> >> I want to stress that the explainers were not ruled against in this >> case and >> EBL AC comments look like a mild recommendation, which is >> appropriate. But >> taking the whole attitude into consideration it is quite possible that >> another AC could rule differently. >> >> I'd welcome your opinions, especially from English contributors. > > As I indicated in my reply to Richard's post, the vast majority of > English players are not even aware that the Polish method exists. Is > England alone in this? How many other countries follow the Polish > method of leading, and do they all describe it the same way? Here (Long Island), leading second highest from a suit with no high cards is called Roman MUD. It is common enough that if I haven't discussed leads with a pickup partner, I would assume it. (MUD = Middle, Up, Down, a common and old convention for showing three small.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 11 16:26:52 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:26:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] secondary claims? In-Reply-To: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00:51 -0500, Bystry wrote: > > Now to both scenarios - you seem not to understand claim laws. First - > the declarer's statement is "I have the rest", everything he says to you > after you come to the table is not a claim statement. Read the laws, the > TD orders the player to *repeat* his statement, not give a new one > (unless the > opponents disturbed his claim at the time). Hmmm, now that you direct my attention to this, I see that you are right -- I don't understand this aspect of the claim laws or even what most directors do. When does the secondary claim occur? Can the director require one? Does it influence the determination of "normal". Or do directors never ask for one and ignore it if it occurs? I don't know what directors do or if there is an established right answer. So you can stop right here and answer. MY TORTURED MUSINGS Suppose declarer claims on opening lead, saying he has 13 tops tricks. The opps question and call me. If it doesn't look too hard to untangle suits, and declarer seems competent to do that, I would give him the claim. If I have concerns about declarer's competency, it would be VERY NICE if I could ask declarer to specify the order of the play. (I don't think there is much UI from the opps merely disputing the claim.) I would be very hesitant to otherwise deny a claim from a nonexpert that I would give to an expert. Call this the secondary claim. If declarer then screwed up the secondary claim I would deny the claim and give him the tricks he got in his claim. The problem is, (1) the rules don't anywhere give me the power to require a secondary claim, and (2) after declarer has repeated his original claim (I have 13 top tricks), I am supposed to hear the opps objection. I would rather hear the secondary claim before the opponents voice their objection. Can I use the secondary claim to determine what is "normal"? As argued, almost everyone but a few ACs uses declarer's apparent awareness of the hand to determine what is normal. Given that, it would be very logical to use the secondary claim to further assess declarer's state of mind and hence what is normal. But L70D1, which refers to secondary claims, is written as if "normal" is defined independently of the secondary claim. This makes sense to me. Again return to the declarer with the slightly tangled suits. If blocking a suit and only taking 12 tricks is normal line of play, then I should give declarer only 12 tricks, no matter what the secondary claim. (Unless the secondard line of play influences normal.) If I decide that this isn't normal line of play, then I should give declarer 13 tricks without any secondary claim. However, if declarer fouls up the suits, I am empowered to grant a secondary claim that wins fewer tricks than any normal line of play. (I assume -- L70D1.) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 11 17:08:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:08:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: References: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: The footnote to the laws contains a potential hint to the definition of normal: "Normal" includes plays that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Unfortunately, this is not much of a hint. "normal" cannot include all plays that are careless or inferior. Then it would include all inferior plays, which isn't what the laws meant or how directors rule. So all we know is that "normal" has to include some. If normal is a range, then the lower half of the range is inferior to average. So most definitions of normal would meet this criterion. The 1997 laws had a potentially much larger clue. "...'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of layer involved, BUT NOT IRRATIONAL." This means that all normal plays are rational. They could be a subset of the rational plays. So, it is a little tenuous, but in the old laws, it would have been very reasonable to equate normal with rational. I hope no one was using this footnote to define normal! Or if they were, I guess they have to rethink their understanding. Or if anyone was just accepting a definition of normal from someone else, they need to check that their source derived it without using that part of the footnote. (I think that if the authors intended to materially change the definition of normal, they would have published that intention. But I am discussing just the laws.) But "rational" has the same problem as "normal". Are we talking about from the perspective of the hand as played so far? If you have three winners and a loser, in no trump, it is clearly irrational to do anything other than cash your winners first. Or should we take the perspective of what you are thinking? If you think that they are all winners, then any order of play is rational. To me, the word "rational" implies taking the perspective inside a person's mind. (For example, my daughter sold a $10-off coupon to someone for $11.50. To decide that buyer's behavior was irrational, you really should know what the buyer was thinking. We don't need to know what they were thinking to determine whether that behavior was normal.) So one could argue that the 1997 laws suggest that "normal" should be interpreted in terms of declarer's apparent awareness. Bob From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 11 21:04:45 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 20:04:45 +0000 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] Nigel's enthymeme glosses over this question: "Why would an expert, who has already invested some considerable time to analyse the correct decision, then waste that time investment by arbitrarily choosing between -1100 or -1050 rather than selecting -680?" [Nigel] Why should I present my argument as a classical syllogism? It is clear enough. I gloss over nothing. My explanation accords with my experience. I admit my theory is speculative because I can't read minds. Richard doubts my surmise: that an expert, after pondering a close decision between bidding or passing, would be reluctant to pass. I contend that the expert is likely to be know when his hesitation could inhibit partner from his normal successful action. I concede that any action by the hesitater entails risk. Nevertheless, I argue that, if the decision is close, the expert is likely to judge that the bid is a *lesser* risk than pass. The other case under discussion is when the director would judge that a hesitation could be for a number of reasons and so does *not* demonstrably suggest any logical alternative over another. Nevertheless, I suspect that a member of an experienced expert partnership is likely to correctly read which of the alternatives was suggested by partner's hesitation, This vague conclusion may lead the expert into taking subconscious or careless advantage. Maciej and Richard believe I'm mistaken. I respect their views. If I'm right, then other BLMLers must share my suspicions. If no BLMLer reached the same conclusions, then I will be forced to reconsider my analysis. Naturally. I would be surprised to find I'm wrong, because in a non-bridge context, a rule is often broken when infraction is rewarding but rarely punished, and sanctions are weak. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Feb 11 21:56:59 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 21:56:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] secondary claims? In-Reply-To: References: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49933B9B.3010808@aol.com> I may be missing something. Have never heard of secondary claims and doubt that they could be possible. Someone claims. If he follows correct procedure there is usually no problem. If he doesn't (the claim is incomplete, faulty or he simply doesn't say how he is going to play) problems can arise. Following ground rules: nothing he says after the claim has been disputed is valid and can/should be ignored. If it is essential he should have said it before the claim was disputed. If there is any doubt the TD (often after conferring with others) judges the validity of the claim. If the line of play is obvious (someone has blinked out, he will not play two small cards form A3 and K2, etc.) you accept the claim. If there is doubt (generally even the slightest doubt in some cases you don't. Any line must be obvious or close to it. (But I am infamous for being very severe with flawed claims.) JE Turning to your example: you don't allow a secondary claim, and don't accept anything said after the claim has been disputed. You must simply decide on the basis of the cards and the stated claim what the probability is that the claimer will fulfil it. If this is very high indeed you can accept the claim. If there is sufficient doubt you reject it. Robert Frick schrieb: > On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:00:51 -0500, Bystry wrote: > > >> Now to both scenarios - you seem not to understand claim laws. First - >> the declarer's statement is "I have the rest", everything he says to you >> after you come to the table is not a claim statement. Read the laws, the >> TD orders the player to *repeat* his statement, not give a new one >> (unless the >> opponents disturbed his claim at the time). > > > > Hmmm, now that you direct my attention to this, I see that you are right > -- I don't understand this aspect of the claim laws or even what most > directors do. When does the secondary claim occur? Can the director > require one? Does it influence the determination of "normal". Or do > directors never ask for one and ignore it if it occurs? > > I don't know what directors do or if there is an established right answer. > So you can stop right here and answer. > > MY TORTURED MUSINGS > Suppose declarer claims on opening lead, saying he has 13 tops tricks. The > opps question and call me. If it doesn't look too hard to untangle suits, > and declarer seems competent to do that, I would give him the claim. If I > have concerns about declarer's competency, it would be VERY NICE if I > could ask declarer to specify the order of the play. (I don't think there > is much UI from the opps merely disputing the claim.) I would be very > hesitant to otherwise deny a claim from a nonexpert that I would give to > an expert. > > Call this the secondary claim. If declarer then screwed up the secondary > claim I would deny the claim and give him the tricks he got in his claim. > > The problem is, (1) the rules don't anywhere give me the power to require > a secondary claim, and (2) after declarer has repeated his original claim > (I have 13 top tricks), I am supposed to hear the opps objection. I would > rather hear the secondary claim before the opponents voice their objection. > > Can I use the secondary claim to determine what is "normal"? As argued, > almost everyone but a few ACs uses declarer's apparent awareness of the > hand to determine what is normal. Given that, it would be very logical to > use the secondary claim to further assess declarer's state of mind and > hence what is normal. But L70D1, which refers to secondary claims, is > written as if "normal" is defined independently of the secondary claim. > > This makes sense to me. Again return to the declarer with the slightly > tangled suits. If blocking a suit and only taking 12 tricks is normal line > of play, then I should give declarer only 12 tricks, no matter what the > secondary claim. (Unless the secondard line of play influences normal.) If > I decide that this isn't normal line of play, then I should give declarer > 13 tricks without any secondary claim. However, if declarer fouls up the > suits, I am empowered to grant a secondary claim that wins fewer tricks > than any normal line of play. (I assume -- L70D1.) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 12 00:59:44 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:59:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? References: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <000201c98ca8$87509790$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? > I hope no one was using this footnote to define normal! Or if they were, I guess they have to rethink their understanding. Or if anyone was just accepting a definition of normal from someone else, they need to check that their source derived it without using that part of the footnote. (I think that if the authors intended to materially change the definition of normal, they would have published that intention. But I am discussing just the laws.) > +=+ The change in the footnote was to satisfy the argument made by William Schoder that irrationality has nothing to do with 'class of player' but is an absolute state of absence of logic or reason. The drafting subcommittee deleted from the footnote the words 'but not irrational' so that any link between irrationality and class of player was removed. It would be wrong to suggest there can have been no intention to change the effect of a law if the subcommittee has failed to say that there is such an intention. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From axman22 at hotmail.com Thu Feb 12 02:23:15 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:23:15 -0600 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000201c98ca8$87509790$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002a01c98ba9$82aed6c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <000201c98ca8$87509790$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Grattan" Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 17:59 To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "A book may be amusing with numerous > errors, or it may be very dull without a > single absurdity." > [Oliver Goldsmith] > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 4:08 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? > > >> > I hope no one was using this footnote to define normal! Or if > they were, I guess they have to rethink their understanding. > Or if anyone was just accepting a definition of normal from > someone else, they need to check that their source derived it > without using that part of the footnote. (I think that if the authors > intended to materially change the definition of normal, they > would have published that intention. But I am discussing just > the laws.) >> > +=+ The change in the footnote was to satisfy the argument > made by William Schoder that irrationality has nothing to do > with 'class of player' but is an absolute state of absence of > logic or reason. The drafting subcommittee deleted from the > footnote the words 'but not irrational' so that any link between > irrationality and class of player was removed. > It would be wrong to suggest there can have been no > intention to change the effect of a law if the subcommittee > has failed to say that there is such an intention. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I can not help but believe that the desired quality of a claim clarification is that nothing is 'known' except claimer's cards, the faced cards at the time of the claim, and, what claimer provides in his clarification. In other words there is no assumption that there is memory as to what cards had been played [and, thus which cards are outstanding nor their distribution]. And consequently, this speaks volumes as to what is irrational/ normal. regards roger pewick From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 12 04:06:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:06:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> Message-ID: .....For example, we could introduce chess-clocks or egg- timers, that automatically penalise a call or play before 5 seconds or after 10 seconds. * * * http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychweb/JPBS1967-2.html The Effect of Anxiety on Time Estimation, William H. Clark, Fairleigh Dickinson University: >the present study examined the effect of anxiety on the >estimation of eight different time intervals. Twenty five >male undergraduate students were required to estimate time >intervals under an anxiety condition in which shock was >administered for inaccurate time estimations, and a non >anxiety condition in which no shock was given. The results >indicated that there was no significant difference between >the mean time estimates under anxiety and non-anxiety >conditions. Previous findings of anxiety producing >overestimation of time intervals were not supported. It was >suggested that overestimation of time intervals is related >to the subjects' control over the object of anxiety (i.e. >shock). When subjects were able to avoid shock through >accurate time estimations, overstimulation did not occur. Doug Couchman: Oh wonderful, thank you. The abstract doesn't have the answer to the secondary question regarding how much people overestimate by, but it does have something better: a partial solution to directors' problem about translating players' time estimates. Apparently, if we subject them to electric shock when they estimate wrong, we can eliminate the systematic bias toward overestimation in cases where the player is anxious. Putting this into practice may take work. Doug Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 12 05:25:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:25:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Lord Campbell of Eskan: "The only justification of the House of Lords is its irrationality; once you try to make it rational, you satisfy no one." Roger Pewick: >I can not help but believe that the desired quality of a claim >clarification is that nothing is 'known' except claimer's cards, >the faced cards at the time of the claim, and, what claimer >provides in his clarification. In other words there is no >assumption that there is memory as to what cards had been played >[and, thus which cards are outstanding nor their distribution]. > >And consequently, this speaks volumes as to what is irrational/ >normal. The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: NORTH K53 KQ32 KJ85 74 WEST EAST T86 97 AJ95 T84 6 QT97432 98532 6 SOUTH AQJ42 76 A AKQJT Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then a heart to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to his ace, the two of spades to dummy's king - and now faces his cards, saying only, "The rest are mine." How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 11 10:21:56 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:21:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 Feb 2009, at 04:04, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > > A procedural penalty on the EBU powers-that-be for a very poorly > designed system card. > > The ABF system card has three clearly differentiated listings: > > * Four or more to an honour > * From four small > * From three cards (no honour) > > each of which include a variety of popular checkboxes, plus also > each contains a space for "Other". The EBU convention card displays forty different holdings (half versus NT, half versus suit contracts), on which players indicate their usual lead from each holding. This discussion is not about the convention card, it's about what players say at the table as short-hand. It's not uncommon for players who are aware of the Polish method (a very small minority of English players) to say something like "fourth highest, second from bad suits". Gordon Rainsford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090211/ef41d41a/attachment.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 11 09:30:33 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:30:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <001201c98ba3$6428dee0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN><49905474.8040205@skynet.be> <6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN><000701c98b1e$26065a00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4991429F.8020307@skynet.be> <001201c98ba3$6428dee0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49928CA9.1080009@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> Sorry Henk, but there are some things that need saying. >> >> Bystry wrote: >>> I'm quite surprised that Herman enthusiastically encourages the players > to >>> perform illegal/bordering on illegal actions, but doesn't encourage > fully >>> lawful, correct, trouble-saving action which is always issuing a claim >>> statement (additionally the laws say that it "should" be done). >>> >> Maciej is again confusing the two types of claim rulings: > > Not at all. I didn't write about the present case (this topic is closed), I So Maciej was not confusing two types - he was merely commenting on one type in a thread dedicated to another type. That was confusing to me. > was refering to your numerous statements from the past regarding the > careless claimers, I could quote them when needed. Here's one from 2000 EBL > Appeals casebook: > > [Herman] > > In cases like this, it is important to find out what goes on in the mind of > declarer. Did he miss something and make an error, or did he neglect to > complete his analysis? I believe that in this case it is the latter. > Declarer felt that he had all tricks, and he claimed, perhaps somewhat > hastily. I do believe that when this declarer will play the hand, he will > realize that he needs his two clubs to be good, and (probably) remembering > the club-showing double by South, finesse the ten. I do not believe that > this declarer was unaware that the ten was out and thought that his hand was > high. After all, he proved this in his subsequent statement/play. This, > together with the almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge > me to rule in favour of claimer in this one. But of course the Director and > Committee may have come to other conclusions as to West's state of mind. > > [/Herman] > > This shows the main disagreement between us, not the infamous "trumps > first/last" case. You want to read the misclaimer's mind and if you decide > that he just claimed carelessly without counting his tricks and without > thinking thoroughly about the correct order to play his tricks, you want to > rule in his favour. > Of course, that is what good directors do. Bad directors do not listen to claimers, do not try to decide whether there is any doubt left, and just rule the worst score possible. Good directors listen to claimers, decide whether they are telling the truth and rule accordig to what they decide. > Sorry, but I could be mild for the player who forgot or miscounted > something, this happens to all of us and is never deliberate, but I would be > extremely harsh if the player admitted that he was too lazy to ensure that > his claim was correct. I would even support PPs in such cases, and that > could be the only reason for mindreading, otherwise I simply apply "normal" > on the basis of forgetting everything which is possible. > Well, here we differ. I believe claims are there to speed up the game. So if a person claims with 8 of a suit including the picture cards, I accept that. If the suit does not break 5-0, some time is gained. If the suit does break 5-0, it is usually quite easy to see how the play will go after the first round reveals the bad split. But what I will not do is rule that this player forgot there are 13 cards just because he did not mention that he has not yet checked to see that they are 5-0. >> The rest of this mail is again too personal, so I won't answer. I'd wish >> Henk would be as harsh on others as he is apparently on me. > > I wanted to loosen the atmosphere a bit, but apparently I failed. Elementary > rules of communication state that it is a duty of the writer to be properly > understood, so it is my 100% fault I wasn't. Therefore I sincerely > apologize, I didn't intend to offend you in any way. > > Nevertheless calling Henk in nearly every email, in which somebody shows any > bit of disagreement with you, is in my opinion unfounded. > Well, Henk was monitoring my mails before sending them to the list, so I needed to tell Henk why I was posting some of them. So those sentences were completely founded. Herman. >> Herman. > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 11 09:43:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 09:43:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <003601c98bab$8b822340$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be><6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> <499141A6.6000502@skynet.be> <003601c98bab$8b822340$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49928FCE.8000700@skynet.be> Bystry wrote: >> Well John, then just change the two 10% in my reasoning to a 15% large >> and 5% small trump (you) or vice-versa (Maxine) and do the maths again. >> The Probst cheat will always be able to play the same way that I rule, >> so he cannot gain from my ruling. Quite the reverse, since my ruling >> will be based on the worst play of the side suits, while the "cheat" is >> able to choose one of the suits - if he chooses better than I do, he >> gains over my ruling. >> >> Check it out, John, it's true. >> I like your argument about Probst cheats very much, but you have to >> admit it works in both directions. If a Probst cheat cannot gain over my >> ruling, my ruling should not be called illegal. > > Herman is right - a cheat cannot gain anything by calling a TD in such > situation, he can always apply TDs prefered "normal" line himself. I can > imagine some more complicated situations in which the cheat may try to > benefit from deliberately prematurely claiming without a statement (or > misclaiming), but those are rather exceptions. > Thank you Maciej. > The only problem with Herman's approach is that all the claimers who forgot > about a small trump lose an unnecessary trick (even with A of trumps and 2 > of a side suit, *that* looks irrational) and all the claimers who forgot > about a high trump don't lose anything. For me it is grossly unjust, > forgetting about high trumps is more of a proof of losing contact with > reality, yet such players are deemed by Herman to play carefully and protect > themselves from that forgetting, whereas forgetting about small ones is > quite common, may easily happen in complicated earlier plays, so why are > such misclaimers not deemed to play carefully and check for the lurkers? > The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are not two types of claimers: those who forget about large or small trumps. We are talking about only one sort of claimer here: the one who believes his trumps are "free". And I don't allow this claimer to "play carefully and protect from forgetting". I merely rule "what happens next". And in my opinion, playing "trumps first" never happens. The reason why this never happens is that it is "playing carefully and protecting one from forgetting", but that is only the underlying reason. The reason why wish to I rule like this is that no player will play the trump first. Allow me to correct Maciej also on one other point. He talks about two kinds of claimers - those that miss a large trump and those that miss a small one. But there is a third type of claimer (within Maciej's frame of reference - I maintain this is yet again the same claimer) - the one that forgot about a high heart (thinking a card is high when it isn't). In that case as well, cashing the trump and then losing the heart (and a club after that) is considered by me to be non-normal. For exactly the same reason. Players know that what they "believe" about a hand is not always 100% right. And they have learnt since beginner-stage that keeping trumps last is a good strategy, just in case. Herman. > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 12 10:16:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:16:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4993E8DD.8080700@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Lord Campbell of Eskan: > > "The only justification of the House of Lords is its irrationality; > once you try to make it rational, you satisfy no one." > > Roger Pewick: > >> I can not help but believe that the desired quality of a claim >> clarification is that nothing is 'known' except claimer's cards, >> the faced cards at the time of the claim, and, what claimer >> provides in his clarification. In other words there is no >> assumption that there is memory as to what cards had been played >> [and, thus which cards are outstanding nor their distribution]. >> >> And consequently, this speaks volumes as to what is irrational/ >> normal. > > The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: > > NORTH > K53 > KQ32 > KJ85 > 74 > WEST EAST > T86 97 > AJ95 T84 > 6 QT97432 > 98532 6 > SOUTH > AQJ42 > 76 > A > AKQJT > > Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then > a heart to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to > his ace, the two of spades to dummy's king - and now faces his > cards, saying only, "The rest are mine." > > How would you rule? > a trump trick to defenders (I have not checked that they can always make it - so if that's the catch, you've caught me). With 4 high trumps, playing them once is sufficient to notice you can draw all, so if one claims after one round of trumps, I award the claim. Drawing twice and then claiming is an indication that one has forgotten the fifth outstanding trump, and it seems it will be hard for claimer to be able to convince me otherwise. (I have ansswered this one, which I believe is simple, just to show that I don't always give a trick more than others) Herman. > > 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 dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 12 11:19:15 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:19:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4993E8DD.8080700@skynet.be> References: <4993E8DD.8080700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c98cfb$5c230a50$14691ef0$@com> [HdW] The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: NORTH K53 KQ32 KJ85 74 WEST EAST T86 97 AJ95 T84 6 QT97432 98532 6 SOUTH AQJ42 76 A AKQJT Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then a heart to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to his ace, the two of spades to dummy's king - and now faces his cards, saying only, "The rest are mine." How would you rule? a trump trick to defenders (I have not checked that they can always make it - so if that's the catch, you've caught me). [DALB] They can't "always" make it - declarer, who believes he has drawn trumps, will run the minors. He will not lead the five of spades and pass it, because that would not be a normal line of play. Nor will he do anything fanciful, such as crossing to the ace of diamonds and returning to the five of spades to pitch winning clubs on the kings of hearts and diamonds before playing a club to his hand, because that would not be a normal line of play either. Under the current Laws (and the Laws as they were in 1982) even I would rule that declarer made his contract. Under the Laws as they ought to be, of course, he would be down five - West wins the six of spades and cashes the jack of hearts, on which South throws the ace of diamonds, then East takes three diamond tricks on which declarer pitches clubs. People will soon learn to claim properly once proper claim Laws are in place. David Burn London, England From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 12 11:41:30 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:41:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4993FCDA.5010306@jldata.fi> This is old deal, and used also in EBL tournament directors courses. It is very clear, that claimer has forgotten one outside trump. Following the law literally we can easily found way to play cards so, that we lose that trick. It is very possible using fuzzy logic. But it is also highly unprobable. We must use some fancy technics to lose trick. Say some clubs, ace of dia, club ruff, then dia king. It is not irrational to play so, but up to my mind, it could not happen at the table. I have never like rulings, that are possible, but in real life would nearly never occur at table. Sometimes I must rule so, but i will not in this case. I am too old to change my opinion, even I feel that lazy claimer should deserve one off. Best regards Juuso Leikola richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Lord Campbell of Eskan: > > "The only justification of the House of Lords is its irrationality; > once you try to make it rational, you satisfy no one." > > Roger Pewick: > > >> I can not help but believe that the desired quality of a claim >> clarification is that nothing is 'known' except claimer's cards, >> the faced cards at the time of the claim, and, what claimer >> provides in his clarification. In other words there is no >> assumption that there is memory as to what cards had been played >> [and, thus which cards are outstanding nor their distribution]. >> >> And consequently, this speaks volumes as to what is irrational/ >> normal. >> > > The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: > > NORTH > K53 > KQ32 > KJ85 > 74 > WEST EAST > T86 97 > AJ95 T84 > 6 QT97432 > 98532 6 > SOUTH > AQJ42 > 76 > A > AKQJT > > Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then > a heart to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to > his ace, the two of spades to dummy's king - and now faces his > cards, saying only, "The rest are mine." > > How would you rule? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 12:00:29 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:00:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage References: <001101c98bf5$c12a6800$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <002e01c98d01$1e4fcdc0$15844c59@chello.pl> > > Now to the point, David Stevenson from 2006 EBL Appeals casebook: > > Actually from the EBU Appeals casebook, which makes it much more > reasonable that "2nd & 4th" be understood in the English usage. Of course, thanks. > > So here we are. Technically the explanation "second/fourth" is fully > > adequate, it correctly describes the leads from all the possible > > holdings, > > excluding of course singletons and some specific holdings with > > honours (like > > Hx or HHx). It is played and fully understood as such in Poland and > > I'm sure > > in other countries too. I use such an explanation online and it > > never caused > > any problems. But apparently in England the method degenerated or > > is simply > > incorrectly called, English leads are in fact first/second/third/ > > fourth. > > It's not a degeneration of the Polish method - it's a modification of > the "4th highest" method to lead "2nd highest from bad suits". I'm not claiming it is a "Polish" method. Second/fourth was not invented here. I'm claiming that calling English method as such is strange because H(x)x and (x)x are neither second nor fourth. But I'm not trying to impose anything on English players, it is your full right to name that method as you wish. I'm simply asking whether I, as a foreigner, am obliged to know what do you call second/fourth when coming to play in England. > Gordon Rainsford Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 12:15:35 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:15:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Technical correctness of an explanation vs local usage[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <46EEAD95-90F6-4E14-9333-7AADE62B35F1@btinternet.com> Message-ID: <003a01c98d03$3a43a5e0$15844c59@chello.pl> > The EBU convention card displays forty different holdings (half > versus NT, half versus suit contracts), for which players indicate > their usual lead from each holding. This discussion is not about the > convention card, it's about what players say at the table as short-hand. > > It's not uncommon for players who are aware of the Polish method (a > very small minority of English players) to say something like "fourth > highest, second from bad suits". And that's closer to describe the English method, but still is misleading in case of doubletons (bad suits). I suspect that leading first from xx is so ingrained in players' minds from some countries that you are treating it as obvious as singletons ;-) > Gordon Rainsford Regards Maciej From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 12 12:44:03 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:44:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi> I don't speak "reverse hesitation", but only situation, when expert has problem, and he has used too much time and therefore there is UI-issue. The best strategy for him is obvious: He must use select call, any call, that maximize partnerships expected value of this deal. He must make also slightly antipercentage calls. So if he select pass, it must suggest not bid to pard, if don't have clear bid. But what expert means in this context. Not necessary expert player or partnership, perhaps more understanding of laws only. How lawmakers can cope this. I don't know. If it is legal to use strategy that maximize partnerships result in given deal, then information that pass suggest no bid must be also legal. Best regards Juuso Leikola Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > Nigel's enthymeme glosses over this question: "Why would an expert, who has already invested some considerable time to analyse the correct decision, then waste that time investment by arbitrarily choosing between -1100 or -1050 rather than selecting -680?" > > [Nigel] > Why should I present my argument as a classical syllogism? It is clear enough. I gloss over nothing. My explanation accords with my experience. I admit my theory is speculative because I can't read minds. > > Richard doubts my surmise: that an expert, after pondering a close decision between bidding or passing, would be reluctant to pass. I contend that the expert is likely to be know when his hesitation could inhibit partner from his normal successful action. I concede that any action by the hesitater entails risk. Nevertheless, I argue that, if the decision is close, the expert is likely to judge that the bid is a *lesser* risk than pass. > > The other case under discussion is when the director would judge that a hesitation could be for a number of reasons and so does *not* demonstrably suggest any logical alternative over another. Nevertheless, I suspect that a member of an experienced expert partnership is likely to correctly read which of the alternatives was suggested by partner's hesitation, This vague conclusion may lead the expert into taking subconscious or careless advantage. > > Maciej and Richard believe I'm mistaken. I respect their views. If I'm right, then other BLMLers must share my suspicions. If no BLMLer reached the same conclusions, then I will be forced to reconsider my analysis. Naturally. I would be surprised to find I'm wrong, because in a non-bridge context, a rule is often broken when infraction is rewarding but rarely punished, and sanctions are weak. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 13:07:31 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:07:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej] > There is a difference between "I/my friend encountered a pair of experts who applied reverse hesitation" and "nowadays experts apply reverse hesitations". First one is an anecdote, second one is a serious accusation regarding a large group of players. In my opinion totally unfounded accusation. I have no idea how often do you play against experts, for me it > is common. I don't remember even one such case and I would be aware of it at least for the last 5 or so years (earlier I could overlook it). Anticipating your doubts - Polish experts are in no way more ethical than the other ones. > > [Nigel] > Maciej has resuscitated an issue that interests me. I've opened a new thread because it's irrelevant to the original topic. I accept that our experiences differ. Here are two examples of what Maciej calls my "accusations". For the sake of argument, please assume that pass is not constructive, in what follows: > > An expert hesitates in a high level competitive auction. This unauthorised information handicaps his partner, who must lean over backwards to avoid an action so suggested, if there is a logical alternative. Now an expert hesitater will stretch to double or bid, rather than stymie his partner by passing. Hence when an expert hesitates and finally passes he usually has a hand unsuitable for action. Typcally, the hand was not really worth the thought devoted to it. This usually benefits the partnership. His partner now takes action only if he judges it to be so clear-cut, that he can defend it to a committee. Thus, I argue that an expert hesitation followed by a pass usually suggests a *pass* by partner :) But I've not encountered such a ruling. Is this in a murky area of law? Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - pass and bid. a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it overhasty or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not always deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner from bidding if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result in suspension) b) player's hand is a normal pass, nothing special - he should pass normally in tempo, he has no reason to do anything else, partner's bidding may be ok or not, but depends only on his hand c) player's hand is better than pass, but not enough to bid - it would be beneficial for him to pass in tempo (no UI restrictions), but it's sometimes hard, so he may hesitate and partner is UI restricted in a classic way - bid is suggested d) player's hand is good enough to bid, but barely - he bids, after a hesitation - his partner has UI that the decision was marginal so pass is usually suggested e) player's hand is a clear bid - he bids without hesitation, no problem As you can see only in a) it may be beneficial for the player to hesitate, but it is clear, flagrant cheating easy to detect. If you, or your friends, or anyone saw such behavior, he should call a TD in some cases and protest that the hesitation was misleading (don't say anything about cheating!) and in the rest of the cases talk to a TD privately. But have in mind that experts are better at hands' evaluation and firstly check with other experts what would they do with the given hand. > Let's steer closer the wind. A player hesitates and passes; then his partner bids on a marginal hand. There may be several possible reasons for the hesitation. Some players tend to tank before *bidding* on. Others are reluctant to risk a penalty *double*. The former may suggest a pass by partner but the latter may suggest a bid. A director may judge that the hesitater's trance could be *equally* for *either* reason; so the hesitator did not restrict his partner's legal options. I contend, however, that, usually, an experienced expert partnership *know* each other's habits :) So, does this open another lacuna that might tempt an expert in play, rather than law? It is a well known phenomenon, you didn't discover America. We call it "bonus for standing partnership". But of course you are exaggerating, look at my earlier reasoning and you will find that hesitating is usually harmful. And remember that there is something like "bridge logic", that in many positions hesitations may mean only one thing, in some other the reason for the hesitation is highly probable. And remember that good TDs will take the skill and the longevity of the partnership into consideration, so in close cases they might tend to rule "demostrably suggested". > Maciej may have met few such cases in his expert experience. But my concerns are shared by some other players. Maciej > may even think that we imagine all this. And he may be right to dismiss our suspicion as speculation because we haven't attended the director-course on mind-reading :) Our experience, however, is that hesitations often result in director calls, rulings, and unhappy players. Look Nigel, *I am a player*, not a TD. And some other contributors are players. And I have many friends from the bridge "world", players and TDs. Noone has ever detected the behavior described by you, and I'm not surprised - I hope I proved it to you that such strategy is absurd and the cheats have much better, harder to detect, means to transmit info. We have some such pairs in Poland, they usually talk a lot during the board, have undisclosed agreements, use fingers, face, bidding cards' layout etc to communicate with partners. Hesitations are not suitable because every opponent may later see the hesitator's hand and he will suspect something. One, two, three such "tricks" and it will be the end. > There's no simple solution that will satisfy most of us. > A suggested law, that players might better understand, > is to penalise UI *itelf*, rather than its alleged *use*. > For example, we could introduce chess-clocks > or egg-timers, that automatically penalise a call or play > before 5 seconds or after 10 seconds. Bridge is a thinking game and such regulations would kill it. Even top players sometimes need to take much more than 10 seconds. There are some "speedball" tournaments and you may look at the results of the deals, you will see how random the game becomes. Regards Maciej From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 12 13:00:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:00:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c98cfb$5c230a50$14691ef0$@com> References: <4993E8DD.8080700@skynet.be> <000001c98cfb$5c230a50$14691ef0$@com> Message-ID: <49940F44.3020101@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: > > NORTH > K53 > KQ32 > KJ85 > 74 > WEST EAST > T86 97 > AJ95 T84 > 6 QT97432 > 98532 6 > SOUTH > AQJ42 > 76 > A > AKQJT > > Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then a heart > to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to his ace, the two of > spades to dummy's king - and now faces his cards, saying only, "The rest are > mine." > > How would you rule? > > a trump trick to defenders (I have not checked that they can always make it > - so if that's the catch, you've caught me). > I meant of course "never" make it. > [DALB] > > They can't "always" make it - declarer, who believes he has drawn trumps, > will run the minors. He will not lead the five of spades and pass it, > because that would not be a normal line of play. Nor will he do anything > fanciful, such as crossing to the ace of diamonds and returning to the five > of spades to pitch winning clubs on the kings of hearts and diamonds before > playing a club to his hand, because that would not be a normal line of play > either. > > Under the current Laws (and the Laws as they were in 1982) even I would rule > that declarer made his contract. Under the Laws as they ought to be, of > course, he would be down five - West wins the six of spades and cashes the > jack of hearts, on which South throws the ace of diamonds, then East takes > three diamond tricks on which declarer pitches clubs. People will soon learn > to claim properly once proper claim Laws are in place. > You did indeed catch me out. I see one line: claimer throws the ace of diamonds on the king of hearts and then wishes to throw a club on the diamond king, which gets ruffed. > David Burn > London, England > From svenpran at online.no Thu Feb 12 15:13:10 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:13:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49940F44.3020101@skynet.be> References: <4993E8DD.8080700@skynet.be> <000001c98cfb$5c230a50$14691ef0$@com> <49940F44.3020101@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301c98d1c$09078be0$1b16a3a0$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > David Burn wrote: > > [HdW] > > > > The Bridge World, December 1982, page 25: > > > > NORTH > > K53 > > KQ32 > > KJ85 > > 74 > > WEST EAST > > T86 97 > > AJ95 T84 > > 6 QT97432 > > 98532 6 > > SOUTH > > AQJ42 > > 76 > > A > > AKQJT > > > > Against South's six-spade contract, West leads ace of hearts, then a heart > > to dummy's queen. Declarer plays the three of spades to his ace, the two of > > spades to dummy's king - and now faces his cards, saying only, "The rest are > > mine." > > > > How would you rule? ................... > I see one line: claimer throws the ace of diamonds on the king of hearts > and then wishes to throw a club on the diamond king, which gets ruffed. If a defender contested the claim (regardless of his argument) I would just smile at him assuming that he was joking. (And believe me; I am NOT lenient on claims) However, if East had held the "forgotten" trump . . . . .. Regards Sven From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Feb 12 15:36:02 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:36:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> [Maciej on example 1] Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - pass and bid. a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it overhasty or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not always deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner from bidding if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result in suspension) b) player's hand is a normal pass, nothing special - he should pass normally in tempo, he has no reason to do anything else, partner's bidding may be ok or not, but depends only on his hand c) player's hand is better than pass, but not enough to bid - it would be beneficial for him to pass in tempo (no UI restrictions), but it's sometimes hard, so he may hesitate and partner is UI restricted in a classic way - bid is suggested d) player's hand is good enough to bid, but barely - he bids, after a hesitation - his partner has UI that the decision was marginal so pass is usually suggested e) player's hand is a clear bid - he bids without hesitation, no problem As you can see only in a) it may be beneficial for the player to hesitate, but it is clear, flagrant cheating easy to detect. If you, or your friends, or anyone saw such behavior, he should call a TD in some cases and protest that the hesitation was misleading (don't say anything about cheating!) and in the rest of the cases talk to a TD privately. But have in mind that experts are better at hands' evaluation and firstly check with other experts what would they do with the given hand. [Nigel] I'm sorry I didn't explain my concerns more clearly.The first problem occurs when the expert holds a hand is in the range b-d, and takes time to think about it. If the decision is close then he is likely to *bid*, so as not to restrict partner's options. Hence when he hesitates and then *passes* I think he he usually has a hand nearer (b) than (d). [Maciej on example 2] It is a well known phenomenon, you didn't discover America. We call it "bonus for standing partnership". But of course you are exaggerating, look at my earlier reasoning and you will find that hesitating is usually harmful. And remember that there is something like "bridge logic", that in many positions hesitations may mean only one thing, in some other the reason for the hesitation is highly probable. And remember that good TDs will take the skill and the longevity of the partnership into consideration, so in close cases they might tend to rule "demostrably suggested". {Nige1] Most of what I write seems obvious but I am still relieved when a BLMLer confirms my esperience. Thank you Maciej. But how can the TD rule as you recommend. Suppose the unauthorised information recipient (UIR) has 2 logical options. As I understand current law, The TD must decide *which* of these options was suggested over the other, often by polling the player's peers. If they can't decide which option the UI demonstrably suggested (without knowing which option was actually chosen) then the director may not rule against the UIR. [Maciej] Look Nigel, *I am a player*, not a TD. And some other contributors are players. And I have many friends from the bridge "world", players and TDs. Noone has ever detected the behavior described by you, and I'm notsurprised - I hope I proved it to you that such strategy is absurd and the cheats have much better, harder to detect, means to transmit info. We have some such pairs in Poland, they usually talk a lot during the board, have undisclosed agreements, use fingers, face, bidding cards' layout etc to communicate with partners. Hesitations are not suitable because every opponent may later see the hesitator's hand and he will suspect something. One, two, three such "tricks" and it will be the end. [Nigel] Most BLMLers are players but many are TDs too. As far as know, I've not met a cheat. But I accept that some players profitably break laws, through ignorance or carelessness or rationalisation. Experts break laws too and we can hardly blame them when even directors fail to agree on legal interpretation. (Maciej likes practical examples: Well, on BLML, appeals with agreed facts, usually split commentator opinions. Please don't ask me to dig out any) IMO, the kind of case, that is the subject of this topic are in a legal grey area. In practice: they rarely attract a director call. It is unclear on what basis, the director could rule that an infraction had occurred (if indeed, a law was broken). [Maciej] Bridge is a thinking game and such regulations would kill it. Even top players sometimes need to take much more than 10 seconds. There are some "speedball" tournaments and you may look at the results of the deals, you will see how random the game becomes. [Nigel] A reasonable view. I suppose that screens would also mitigate the tempo-break problem. But they need extra paraphanalia and would reduce the social attraction of club bridge. There is unlikely to be an ideal solution :( From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Feb 12 15:43:58 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 14:43:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi> References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> <49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <499435AE.6030906@talktalk.net> [Juuso Leikola] I don't speak "reverse hesitation", but only situation, when expert has problem, and he has used too much time and therefore there is UI-issue. The best strategy for him is obvious: He must use select call, any call, that maximize partnerships expected value of this deal. He must make also slightly antipercentage calls. So if he select pass, it must suggest not bid to pard, if don't have clear bid. But what expert means in this context. Not necessary expert player or partnership, perhaps more understanding of laws only. How lawmakers can cope this. I don't know. If it is legal to use strategy that maximize partnerships result in given deal, then information that pass suggest no bid must be also legal. [Nigel] Juuso's experience and mine are the same, even if describe it in different words. From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 16:08:27 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:08:27 +0100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> <49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> > I don't speak "reverse hesitation", but only situation, when expert has > problem, and he has used too much time and therefore there is UI-issue. > The best strategy for him is obvious: He must use select call, any call, > that maximize partnerships expected value of this deal. He must make > also slightly antipercentage calls. So if he select pass, it must > suggest not bid to pard, if don't have clear bid. Error in logic. Pass after hesitation still shows a *better* hand than pass without hesitation. Partner assumes a normal pass without UI, now he knows that the hesitator has more than normal pass, so bidding is still suggested. > Best regards Juuso Leikola Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 12 16:37:30 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:37:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - > pass and bid. > a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop > bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it > overhasty or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not > always deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner > from bidding if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result > in suspension) > AG : could we imagine to use random tempo, even without screens ? That is, you'll sometimes "hesitate" after you've made your obvious decision. To avoid being called a c***t in case a), you'd rather signal this to opponents. I tried it, it works, but it's difficult to ascertain that the pattern of tempi is truly random. Is this procedure Law-ful ? Best regards Alain From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 18:34:33 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:34:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej on example 1] > Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - > pass and bid. > a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop > bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it > overhasty or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not > always deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner > from bidding if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result > in suspension) > b) player's hand is a normal pass, nothing special - he should pass > normally in tempo, he has no reason to do anything else, partner's > bidding may be ok or not, but depends only on his hand > c) player's hand is better than pass, but not enough to bid - it would > be beneficial for him to pass in tempo (no UI restrictions), but it's > sometimes hard, so he may hesitate and partner is UI restricted in a > classic way - bid is suggested > d) player's hand is good enough to bid, but barely - he bids, after a > hesitation - his partner has UI that the decision was marginal so pass > is usually suggested > e) player's hand is a clear bid - he bids without hesitation, no problem > As you can see only in a) it may be beneficial for the player to > hesitate, but it is clear, flagrant cheating easy to detect. If you, or > your friends, or anyone saw such behavior, he should call a TD in some > cases and protest that the hesitation was misleading (don't say anything > about cheating!) and in the rest of the cases talk to a TD privately. > But have in mind that experts are better at hands' evaluation and > firstly check with other experts what would they do with the given hand. > > [Nigel] > I'm sorry I didn't explain my concerns more clearly.The first problem > occurs when the expert holds a hand is in the range b-d, and takes time > to think about it. If the decision is close then he is likely to *bid*, > so as not to restrict partner's options. Hence when he hesitates and > then *passes* I think he he usually has a hand nearer (b) than (d). Yes, we may assume that "hesitation and pass" is closer to b) because with c+) hesitator would probably bid and with c) he could. But what does the pair gain? Without any UI partner assumes a) - c+d-), so on average about b+). With UI he knows it is b+) - c), so on average a bit more than b+). No real benefit, instead a possible loss if partner wanted to bid assuming b) or b+), and now he is restricted (pass is a LA). > [Maciej on example 2] > It is a well known phenomenon, you didn't discover America. We call it > "bonus for standing partnership". But of course you are exaggerating, > look at my earlier reasoning and you will find that hesitating is > usually harmful. And remember that there is something like "bridge > logic", that in many positions hesitations may mean only one thing, in > some other the reason for the hesitation is highly probable. And > remember that good TDs will take the skill and the longevity of the > partnership into consideration, so in close cases they might tend to > rule "demostrably suggested". > > {Nige1] > Most of what I write seems obvious but I am still relieved when a > BLMLer confirms my esperience. Thank you Maciej. But how can the TD rule > as you recommend. Suppose the unauthorised information recipient (UIR) > has 2 logical options. As I understand current law, The TD must decide > *which* of these options was suggested over the other, often by polling > the player's peers. If they can't decide which option the UI > demonstrably suggested (without knowing which option was actually > chosen) then the director may not rule against the UIR. You are tilting at toy windmills. In close cases standing partnerships will sometimes slize through, right. So what? They have more advantages caused by longevity of their partnership - knowledge about each other's skill, habits, agressiveness, leading tendencies. They gain because of short hitches, face expressions, certainty of the hand etc, subconsciously received (no cheating, mere use of UI but involuntary and practically undetectable). Sorry Nigel, I everyday see much more ordinary infractions, flagrant UI, MI to care even a little bit about the cases which are relatively rare and nothing gross happens. > [Maciej] > Look Nigel, *I am a player*, not a TD. And some other contributors are > players. And I have many friends from the bridge "world", players and > TDs. Noone has ever detected the behavior described by you, and I'm > notsurprised - I hope I proved it to you that such strategy is absurd > and the cheats have much better, harder to detect, means to transmit > info. We have some such pairs in Poland, they usually talk a lot during > the board, have undisclosed agreements, use fingers, face, bidding > cards' layout etc to communicate with partners. Hesitations are not > suitable because every opponent may later see the hesitator's hand and > he will suspect something. One, two, three such "tricks" and it will be > the end. > > [Nigel] > Most BLMLers are players but many are TDs too. As far as know, I've not > met a cheat. But I accept that some players profitably break laws, > through ignorance or carelessness or rationalisation. Experts break laws > too and we can hardly blame them when even directors fail to agree on > legal interpretation. (Maciej likes practical examples: Well, on BLML, > appeals with agreed facts, usually split commentator opinions. Please > don't ask me to dig out any) Yes, some players profitably break the laws. Some experts too, right. In real life some thiefs/gangsters/defraudants etc profitably break the laws. Some authorities too. What does it prove? That no matter how perfect the laws may be designed, people will still find some ways to break them and benefit, unless nearly *all* the irregularities will be punished with death penalty (which won't be accepted), but even then there will remain a problem of detection. And in bridge most laws are broken unintentionally, so harsh penalisation may only reduce the number of infractions, never eliminate them. I'm a very careful and attentive player, but nevertheless I have my share of manual errors. Much smaller than on average but still. And I can ensure you that no matter what penalty you would give me, those would still happen. You are worried by different interpretations, but the same happens in real life, why do we have Highest Courts, Constitution Tribunals, Precedents? I'm not claiming that TFLB is perfect, much could be improved, but no matter what we will do, even employing your ideas, there will still remain problems, because bridge is too complicated to apply simple solutions. > IMO, the kind of case, that is the subject of this topic are in a legal > grey area. In practice: they rarely attract a director call. It is > unclear on what basis, the director could rule that an infraction had > occurred (if indeed, a law was broken). In practice they do not exist, or happen very rarely. Hesitations are nearly never beneficial, they restrict options and even if they transmit some info, the potential receiver will be judged from the point without any hesitation, and in choosing LAs any info gained is unimportant. Look again at my reasoning, to gain something the partner of the hesitator would have to be very optimistic, so that without any UI he would assume better hand than c) (c+)) and after the hesitation he would know that c+) is improbable and pass. How often something like that may happen? And remember that "paper" deliberations are not adequate to the real situation at the table, there such reasoning is hard to implement and the player would be often mistaken. > [Maciej] Bridge is a thinking game and such regulations would kill it. > Even top players sometimes need to take much more than 10 seconds. There > are some "speedball" tournaments and you may look at the results of the > deals, you will see how random the game becomes. > > [Nigel] > A reasonable view. I suppose that screens would also mitigate the tempo-break problem. But they need extra paraphanalia and would reduce the social attraction of club bridge. There is unlikely to be an ideal solution :( Screens are not perfect, but they help considerably. As to the social attraction, if you are playing in clubs, then I see no need to worry about lawbreaking. I fully understand that the TDs are lenient and the best way is to behave socially. Gross abusers can be discouraged from coming again and the rest should have fun. I'm nearly never calling TD in our local tournaments, I allow to correct revokes and other mechanical errors without penalty, ignore UI, try to cope with MI myself. But if I'm playing in a serious tournament, I have no mercy, there are no exceptions. That's for me a difference between challenge/competition and spending free time having fun. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 18:43:31 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:43:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl><499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001701c98d39$6c115fa0$15844c59@chello.pl> AG : could we imagine to use random tempo, even without screens ? That is, you'll sometimes "hesitate" after you've made your obvious decision. To avoid being called a c***t in case a), you'd rather signal this to opponents. I tried it, it works, but it's difficult to ascertain that the pattern of tempi is truly random. Is this procedure Law-ful ? [Maciej] Random hesitations would give carte blanche to the actual cheats and in my opinion "produce" new cheats. It would be impossible to detect systems of hesitations applied by such pairs. What's more, poorer players would gain an undeserved advantage, because now their inability to make a decision in tempo may help the opponents, but after your proposed change they couldn't draw any conclusion. Playing in tempo and "table feel" are for me definitely bridge skills and shouldn't be eliminated. But I'm sure you would find supporters, there are some players (intelligent and reasonable too) who advocate allowing to think with xxx when the declarer searches for Q etc. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Feb 12 19:50:09 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:50:09 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net> [Maciej] Yes, we may assume that "hesitation and pass" is closer to b) because with c+) hesitator would probably bid and with c) he could. But what does the pair gain? Without any UI partner assumes a) - c+d-), so on average about b+). With UI he knows it is b+) - c), so on average a bit more than b+). No real benefit, instead a possible loss if partner wanted to bid assuming b) or b+), and now he is restricted (pass is a LA). [Nige1] Juuso Leikola and I have speculated about expert thinking in these contexts. Our experience fits our theory. Maciej and Richard Hills reject our suspicions; and their experiences confirms their position. [Maciej] You are tilting at toy windmills. In close cases standing partnerships will sometimes slize through, right. So what? They have more advantages caused by longevity of their partnership - knowledge about each other's skill, habits, agressiveness, leading tendencies. They gain because of short hitches, face expressions, certainty of the hand etc, subconsciously received (no cheating, mere use of UI but involuntary and practically undetectable). Sorry Nigel, I everyday see much more ordinary infractions, flagrant UI, MI to care even a little bit about the cases which are relatively rare and nothing gross happens. [Nige2] I don't like laws that reward suspect expert behaviour. [Maciej] Yes, some players profitably break the laws. Some experts too, right. In real life some thiefs/gangsters/defraudants etc profitably break the laws. Some authorities too. What does it prove? That no matter how perfect the laws may be designed, people will still find some ways to break them and benefit, unless nearly *all* the irregularities will be punished with death penalty (which won't be accepted), but even then there will remain a problem of detection. And in bridge most laws are broken unintentionally, so harsh penalisation may only reduce the number of infractions, never eliminate them. I'm a very careful and attentive player, but nevertheless I have my share of manual errors. Much smaller than on average but still. And I can ensure you that no matter what penalty you would give me, those would still happen. You are worried by different interpretations, but the same happens in real life, why do we have Highest Courts, Constitution Tribunals, Precedents? I'm not claiming that TFLB is perfect, much could be improved, but no matter what we will do, even employing your ideas, there will still remain problems, because bridge is too complicated to apply simple solutions. [Nigel] Perfection may be impossible; improvement is relatively easy. IMO: - it is easier to comply with simple rules that ordinary players understand and regard as fair; - than with sophisticated, complex, subjective, fragmented, laws and regulations, when top law gurus disagree over their interpretation. - Unfortunately, I don't know of an acceptable effective way of dealing with unauthorised information face-to-face; but if my fears are real, perhaps the law could be improved. [Maciej on the topic examples] In practice they do not exist, or happen very rarely. Hesitations are nearly never beneficial, they restrict options and even if they transmit some info, the potential receiver will be judged from the point without any hesitation, and in choosing LAs any info gained is unimportant. Look again at my reasoning, to gain something the partner of the hesitator would have to be very optimistic, so that without any UI he would assume better hand than c) (c+)) and after the hesitation he would know that c+) is improbable and pass. How often something like that may happen? And remember that "paper" deliberations are not adequate to the real situation at the table, there such reasoning is hard to implement and the player would be often mistaken. [Nigel] Again Maciej's experience differs in many respects from my experience, as detailed earlier. [Maciej] Screens are not perfect, but they help considerably. As to the social attraction, if you are playing in clubs, then I see no need to worry about lawbreaking. I fully understand that the TDs are lenient and the best way is to behave socially. Gross abusers can be discouraged from coming again and the rest should have fun. I'm nearly never calling TD in our local tournaments, I allow to correct revokes and other mechanical errors without penalty, ignore UI, try to cope with MI myself. But if I'm playing in a serious tournament, I have no mercy, there are no exceptions. That's for me a difference between challenge/competition and spending free time having fun. [Nigel] I enjoy playing in clubs.I can't afford to take part in more national competitions. I think laws/regulations should be so simple that they can be understood at *club-level*. At all levels, especially club level, I prefer a game where - - players are happy to try to comply with the law; - directors are prepared and willing to enforce the law; - players can appreciate the justice of rulings. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Feb 12 20:13:44 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:13:44 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <001701c98d39$6c115fa0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl><499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be> <001701c98d39$6c115fa0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499474E8.6080107@talktalk.net> [Alain Gottcheiner] AG : could we imagine to use random tempo, even without screens ? That is, you'll sometimes "hesitate" after you've made your obvious decision. To avoid being called a c***t in case a), you'd rather signal this to opponents. I tried it, it works, but it's difficult to ascertain that the pattern of tempi is truly random. Is this procedure Law-ful ? [Maciej] Random hesitations would give carte blanche to the actual cheats and in my opinion "produce" new cheats. It would be impossible to detect systems of hesitations applied by such pairs. What's more, poorer players would gain an undeserved advantage, because now their inability to make a decision in tempo may help the opponents, but after your proposed change they couldn't draw any conclusion. Playing in tempo and "table feel" are for me definitely bridge skills and shouldn't be eliminated. But I'm sure you would find supporters, there are some players (intelligent and reasonable too) who advocate allowing to think with xxx when the declarer searches for Q etc. [Nigel] I believe Alain's solution is unlawful. I agree with Maciej that it wouldn't work. BLMLers have suggested - Randomly breaking tempo. - Randomly asking about alerts. - Randomly asking about partner showing out in a suit. It can be hard for people to simulate random behaviour. (unless blatantly, eg by consulting a watch at critical moments) And the nature of these particular contexts, make randomness impossible, unless - You act immediately, sometimes, when you really have something to think about. - You refrain from asking about opponent's call, sometimes, even when you need to know. - You refrain from asking about partner's play, sometimes, even when you suspect a possible revoke. Otherwise, there will be probabilistic inferences :) From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 12 20:55:59 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:55:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej] > Yes, we may assume that "hesitation and pass" is closer to b) because with > c+) hesitator would probably bid and with c) he could. But what does the > pair gain? Without any UI partner assumes a) - c+d-), so on average about > b+). With UI he knows it is b+) - c), so on average a bit more than b+). No > real benefit, instead a possible loss if partner wanted to bid assuming b) > or b+), and now he is restricted (pass is a LA). > > [Nige1] > Juuso Leikola and I have speculated about expert thinking in these contexts. Our > experience fits our theory. Maciej and Richard Hills reject our suspicions; > and their experiences confirms their position. That is not a question of experience, that is a question of logic. Nigel, give me *one* example when the hesitator gains something, you may invent it if you wish. > [Nige2] > I don't like laws that reward suspect expert behaviour. The laws don't "reward" anything. Thinking is allowed and an integral part of bridge by the lord Harry! You are simply paranoid, maybe experts achieve good scores against you and you are seeking something to put blame on. Sorry, that's how I receive your stubbornness against the reason, arguments and logic. > [Nigel] > Perfection may be impossible; improvement is relatively easy. IMO: > - it is easier to comply with simple rules that ordinary players understand and regard as fair; > - than with sophisticated, complex, subjective, fragmented, laws and regulations, when top law gurus disagree over their interpretation. So, do you think that Ton, Grattan and others are fanatic enemies of bridge, deliberately inventing bad laws to hurt poor Nigels? You are repeating this mantra for years: "simple - sophisticates, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc" "simple - sophisticated, complex etc"... I don't like this argument, but I'll use it as a last resort - prepare a complete set of simple, understandable, objective laws. I beg, at least try to construct something like that and you will see that it is a very hard job, that there are hundreds situations in bridge which have to be covered, that some concepts conflict with each other (e.g. UI/disclosure), that without leaving the possibility of applying judgement you will end with artificial solutions sometimes harshly punishing small, harmless mistakes and sometimes allowing for beneficial cheating. Then try to find acceptance from the whole bridge world, every Zone, every NBO, majority of players. Convince Poles or Englishmen that they have to learn a new, complete system, convince them that they have to alert their 1C openings in Poland/1M openings in England every time, convince Americans that their own concepts are wrong, that Nigel is the one who knows better what is good for American LOLs, convince Chinese that they should use Standard CCs in English, not their own CCs etc etc etc. Believe it or not, but in spite of the fact that the lawmakers are not perfect, they are mostly very knowledgable people, experienced in bridge matters and intelligent. They know that simplicity would be fine, but they also know that simplicity is not everything and other aspects are at least as much important. They wanted to reorganise the whole FLB, but couldn't because of ACBL resistance. Should I continue? > - Unfortunately, I don't know of an acceptable effective way of dealing with unauthorised information face-to-face; but if my fears are real, perhaps the law could be improved. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Try to invent a method, but not forbidding thinking, that won't be accepted by anyone who knows what bridge is about. > [Nigel] > I enjoy playing in clubs.I can't afford to take part in more national competitions. > I think laws/regulations should be so simple that they can be understood at *club-level*. They should, but it is not a question of simplicity. The players have to know maybe 15% of the whole FLB, it would be enough to prepare something like Player's Guide, you have Orange Book in England (although in my opinion it is too complicated for club players and could be written better). > At all levels, especially club level, I prefer a game where - > - players are happy to try to comply with the law; > - directors are prepared and willing to enforce the law; > - players can appreciate the justice of rulings. And didn't it cross your mind that the players are as much guilty as the TDs and the lawmakers? Think about it, how many players are interested in the laws? How many ignore them deliberately? How often do they scream when penalised for a revoke or COOT? Following your logic, politicians stating laws and policemen are guilty because the drivers overspeed? Because thiefs steal? Because dealers distribute drugs? There is no law system which managed to eliminate crime, some are better in reducing it, but much depends on the society - why do you think things are worse at the outskirts of Paris than in the city or in Harlem than in the other districts? Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Feb 12 22:50:56 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:50:56 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net> <000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net> [Maciej] That is not a question of experience, that is a question of logic. Nigel, give me *one* example when the hesitator gains something, you may invent it if you wish. [Nigel] It's easy to produce examples. It's harder to get agreement about bidding judgement. But here goes... At teams, at equal vulnerability, partner deals and passes, RHO opens 1N (12-14). You've agreed to play Sharples and you hesitate over what to bid. [1] You hold S:Axxxx H:Axxx D:xxx C:Q. You have the right shape to try a Sharples 2D but in this context, you think it would be dangerous. If you pass after hesitating, however, partner may be inhibited from taking his normal action; so you finally decide that bidding is the lesser risk. Partner has S:Kxxxx H:Kx D:xx C:Jxxx, so you reach a lucky making game. [2] You hold S:QJxxx H:QJxx D:xxx C:Q. Again you have the right shape for 2D under your methods, but realise, after thought, that your values are woefully inadequate. You think bidding would be dangerous, especially as partner will place you with a stronger hand. Hence you pass. Partner had intended to protect with a brave 2N overcall on his S:x H:x D:QJT9x C:Axxxxx but your hesitation indicates values and so deters him from bidding. If your side had competed, then even 2DX would have cost 800 against a part-score, so your hesitation resulted in a narrow escape. For the sake of argument, please assume that the above judgements would coincide with the judgements of the players' peers. Alternatively, if you vehemently disagree with these judgments, then feel free to adjust the hands, either way, to conform to your own judgement. Finally, please notice that, if you *swap* over opener's hands, then similar arguments still apply. From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 12 22:59:56 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 13:59:56 -0800 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl><499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be><001701c98d39$6c115fa0$15844c59@chello.pl> <499474E8.6080107@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <8C9630B882BE4702B1F784052A0CB64C@MARVLAPTOP> Early in their careers, Marshall Miles and partner Eddie Kantor would announce before play,: "We use random hesitations." That didn't last long for some reason. I thought at the time it was a good idea, but now realize it was not. Better is to announce, "We bid and play in a slow tempo in all situations when tempo variation might cause a problem." The Laws should require that policy, actually. Maybe they do: Law 73D1: It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner. However, players should be particularly careful when variations may work to the benefit of their side. Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction. [What schoolmarm wrote this, carefully avoiding the splitting of an infinitive?] If it is not "always required," then it must be generally required. Very few players seem to know this. I judge the time taken for a first-round pass is usually about one second for every three high-card points held. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 12 23:17:28 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:17:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49928FCE.8000700@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be><6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> <499141A6.6000502@skynet.be> <003601c98bab$8b822340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49928FCE.8000700@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49949FF8.8080603@aol.com> Please allow a minor semantic quibble. As a native English speaker, translator and one-time teacher I have problems with the expression that a trump is "free". What possible meaning could that have in correct English? I can understand that a trump is high, or good, or the last trump (and probably a few other expressions) but inventing new terms, which aren't correct English, does not help us in my opinion. JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Bystry wrote: >>> Well John, then just change the two 10% in my reasoning to a 15% large >>> and 5% small trump (you) or vice-versa (Maxine) and do the maths again. >>> The Probst cheat will always be able to play the same way that I rule, >>> so he cannot gain from my ruling. Quite the reverse, since my ruling >>> will be based on the worst play of the side suits, while the "cheat" is >>> able to choose one of the suits - if he chooses better than I do, he >>> gains over my ruling. >>> >>> Check it out, John, it's true. >>> I like your argument about Probst cheats very much, but you have to >>> admit it works in both directions. If a Probst cheat cannot gain over my >>> ruling, my ruling should not be called illegal. >> Herman is right - a cheat cannot gain anything by calling a TD in such >> situation, he can always apply TDs prefered "normal" line himself. I can >> imagine some more complicated situations in which the cheat may try to >> benefit from deliberately prematurely claiming without a statement (or >> misclaiming), but those are rather exceptions. >> > > Thank you Maciej. > >> The only problem with Herman's approach is that all the claimers who forgot >> about a small trump lose an unnecessary trick (even with A of trumps and 2 >> of a side suit, *that* looks irrational) and all the claimers who forgot >> about a high trump don't lose anything. For me it is grossly unjust, >> forgetting about high trumps is more of a proof of losing contact with >> reality, yet such players are deemed by Herman to play carefully and protect >> themselves from that forgetting, whereas forgetting about small ones is >> quite common, may easily happen in complicated earlier plays, so why are >> such misclaimers not deemed to play carefully and check for the lurkers? >> > > The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are not two types > of claimers: those who forget about large or small trumps. > We are talking about only one sort of claimer here: the one who believes > his trumps are "free". And I don't allow this claimer to "play carefully > and protect from forgetting". I merely rule "what happens next". And in > my opinion, playing "trumps first" never happens. The reason why this > never happens is that it is "playing carefully and protecting one from > forgetting", but that is only the underlying reason. The reason why wish > to I rule like this is that no player will play the trump first. > > Allow me to correct Maciej also on one other point. He talks about two > kinds of claimers - those that miss a large trump and those that miss a > small one. But there is a third type of claimer (within Maciej's frame > of reference - I maintain this is yet again the same claimer) - the one > that forgot about a high heart (thinking a card is high when it isn't). > In that case as well, cashing the trump and then losing the heart (and a > club after that) is considered by me to be non-normal. For exactly the > same reason. Players know that what they "believe" about a hand is not > always 100% right. And they have learnt since beginner-stage that > keeping trumps last is a good strategy, just in case. > > Herman. > >> Regards >> >> Maciej >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 13 00:28:29 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:28:29 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4994B09D.7090201@talktalk.net> [Maciej] Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - pass and bid. a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it overhasty or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not always deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner from bidding if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result in suspension) [Nigel] We've been discussing Maciej's other examples, but for interest, may we revisit his first example (a): Assume a context in which a few ordinary players bid, but for most experts pass is clear. The expert hesitates and passes. This inhibits his pick-up partner from making his normal bid - a bid that would have turned out badly. The director suspects that the expert may have hesitated deliberately to stop his partner bidding; the expert expresses surprize and insists that he thought he had a problem. I've not met a case where a director ruled against a partnership when a player passed after his expert partner hesitated and passed. Has Maciej encountered such a ruling? On what law would such a ruling be based? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 13 04:08:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:08:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Horses for courses (was Technical) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002e01c98d01$1e4fcdc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: Bette Davis (1908-1989): "Some young Hollywood starlets remind me of my grandmother's old farmhouse -- all painted up nice on the front side, a big swing on the backside, and nothing whatsoever in the attic." Maciej Bystry asked: [snip] >I'm simply asking whether I, as a foreigner, am obliged to know >what do you call second/fourth when coming to play in England. Richard Hills replies: Some young Polish experts remind me of: "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully disclosed to your opponents." (ABF Alert Regulation) Some young Polish experts remind me of: "Bridge is not a game of secret messages; it is necessary that all players understand and practice the principles of Full Disclosure and Active Ethics. Ethical bridge players will recognize the obligation to give complete explanations." (ACBL Alert Regulation) Some young Polish experts remind me of: "While specific questions may elicit the actual facts that the questioner wishes to know, there is a danger that they may lead to incomplete answers. For example, if a 3C overcall is Ghestem, showing a hand with two specified suits, and if an opponent merely says "Weak or strong?" it is not unreasonable for a player to answer "Weak", since this is true (and since more complete answers have been known to elicit comments such as "I did not ask that.")." (EBU Orange Book, clause 3B9, first paragraph) So both ABF and ACBL Appeals Committees or Regulating Authorities would rule against a player who gave an accurate but incomplete and therefore misleading explanation. But an EBU Appeals Committee and/or Regulating Authority could and did rule in favour of a player who gave an accurate but incomplete and therefore misleading explanation. What's the problem? The young Polish expert Maciej Bystry is not the problem, since he doubtless gives comprehensively detailed explanations whenever he encounters strange opponents who may come from a different bridge culture. No, the problem is in the dilatory EBU Law and Ethics Committee, whom despite several complaints (from John Probst, etc) are yet to repeal the first paragraph of Orange Book clause 3B9. 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 Feb 13 05:38:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:38:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Law 17A: "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner withdraws his cards from the board." Law 73D1, first sentence: "It is desirable, though not always required, for players to maintain steady tempo and unvarying manner." Law 7B2: "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the faces of his cards." Richard Hills: Since inspection of cards occurs during the auction period, as dealer I take the same amount of time to sort and inspect my cards when holding a yarborough as I do when holding 9 hcp, thus my medium-slow opening call of Pass therefore has no UI attached. Likewise, the speed of my Symmetric Relay strong 1C is not slow with 15 hcp (due to an abacus double-check that a jack was not counted as 2 hcp) but fast with 19 hcp. Rather, in both cases I open a medium-slow 1C. Or, alternatively, if I find on the recheck that I did initially double-count a jack, I open a medium- slow 1NT with 14 hcp. 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 lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Feb 12 18:04:31 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:04:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> <49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi> <001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4994569F.1010706@jldata.fi> Error in logic. No, error in reading or willingness to understand Slow pass always caries UI, even old man's can and will understand it. But slow pass using strategy below, sends legal message to pard, do not bid, if you don't have clear bid. If you bid, you can lose it in two places, first in play, because I don't have made even antipercentage bid and because of UI, even bid is successful. Bid only when you can win in both cases. Best regards Juuso Bystry wrote: >> I don't speak "reverse hesitation", but only situation, when expert has >> problem, and he has used too much time and therefore there is UI-issue. >> The best strategy for him is obvious: He must use select call, any call, >> that maximize partnerships expected value of this deal. He must make >> also slightly antipercentage calls. So if he select pass, it must >> suggest not bid to pard, if don't have clear bid. >> > > Error in logic. Pass after hesitation still shows a *better* hand than pass > without hesitation. Partner assumes a normal pass without UI, now he knows > that the hesitator has more than normal pass, so bidding is still suggested. > > >> Best regards Juuso Leikola >> > > Regards > > Maciej > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090212/48f6fc18/attachment.htm From posundelin at yahoo.se Thu Feb 12 18:27:49 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:27:49 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <4988D557.7090100@skynet.be> Message-ID: <114567.45869.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> I posted a question on insufficient bids and entered (registered,became a member - the last one, or possibly a free one) in order to enjoy what I imagined would be an exchange of learned?opinions?. My mailbox filled up but I only had time to read the "insufficient" opinions. Today I decided to study?the other wisdoms, thread by thread. I have so far managed?"A question" I wish I hadn?t. Let me salute the Moderator even if it took him much too long. ? It is normal to admire people who stand up for their views but when?Herman blindly and deafly keeps repeating that he knows best, is right, everybody else?is wrong, has missed the point etc the whole situation becomes ridiculous. ? "Nobody plays trumps first". Well.? One of the examples will suffice. Declarer has AAA2 and is convinced that the 2 is high (obviously then also "last" or "alone"). If spades are trumps (he is also convinced that opponents have no more trumps), of course he will/may!should play his trump first - just in case...). Now imagine clubs are trumps. Again of course he will/may/should play the trump, just in case there are two trumps out (they might split 1-1) to avoid losing to them separately. But in both cases he might not. I would let him lose in both cases, but what about? AKQ of trumps and a side ace? ? If? TDs?are given the power to decide what is "normal" for an unspecifying claimer?I predict we will have a huge number of appeals thereby losing the time we saved by the claim. ? Do?I look forward to studying the other threads? Well.... ? __________________________________________________________ L?na pengar utan s?kerhet. J?mf?r vilkor online hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100390123-lan-utan-sakerhet.html?partnerId=96915014 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090212/b8e3a4ef/attachment.htm From posundelin at yahoo.se Thu Feb 12 22:09:31 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:09:31 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <180079.88758.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> For my question I change (back) to Ax,AKQ,Qxx,AQJTx >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xxx,xxx,Kxx, K98x ? ? West has KQJ,xxx,AJT,xxxx and leads a heart. Would all you TDs bother to look at the East-West hands when declarer claims nine tricks? ? Declarer cashes the nine claimed tricks and exits with a spade. There is no way declarer can escape a diamond trick (except by ducking from both hands). Note how carefully I gave West ununblockable spades... There is no way that East can get in. ? So the question repeated if you lost track during the stage setting: Will/should a TD force the? tenth trick upon the nine-trick claimer? ? ? __________________________________________________________ G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. http://www.kelkoo.se/c-100015813-bredband.html?partnerId=96914325 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090212/4a3eebaa/attachment.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 13 08:51:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 08:51:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49949FF8.8080603@aol.com> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be><6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> <499141A6.6000502@skynet.be> <003601c98bab$8b822340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49928FCE.8000700@skynet.be> <49949FF8.8080603@aol.com> Message-ID: <49952668.5090009@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Please allow a minor semantic quibble. As a native English speaker, > translator and one-time teacher I have problems with the expression that > a trump is "free". What possible meaning could that have in correct > English? I can understand that a trump is high, or good, or the last > trump (and probably a few other expressions) but inventing new terms, > which aren't correct English, does not help us in my opinion. JE > Jeff, I did write once before (in incorrect english which was corrected by Grattan) that you, as the native English speaker, were allowed to find a better term. I used the term "last" originally, and when someone used "free", I picked up on that term. If you consider it incorrect, then please suggest some other term. But what I meant to say was something very specific. The word "high" won't do, since that implies that the suit contains no outstanding cards, higher than the ones claimer holds - and even then it's hard to describe, but we know what we mean. When I say trumps are "free", I mean that there are no more trumps _at all_ in opponents' hands. It is this distinction which I find important and which I wanted to describe with a single word. OK? Herman. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 13 12:15:30 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:15:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <180079.88758.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <180079.88758.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001501c98dcc$61d7d7b0$25878710$@no> On Behalf Of PO Sundelin > For my question I change (back) to > Ax,AKQ,Qxx,AQJTx > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > xxx,xxx,Kxx, K98x > > > West has KQJ,xxx,AJT,xxxx and leads a heart. > Would all you TDs bother to look at the East-West hands > when declarer claims nine tricks? > > Declarer cashes the nine claimed tricks and exits with a spade. > There is no way declarer can escape a diamond trick (except > by ducking from both hands). Note how carefully I gave West > ununblockable spades... There is no way that East can get in. > > So the question repeated if you lost track during the stage > setting: Will/should a TD force the tenth trick upon the nine-trick > claimer? The short answer is NO. TD shall never "find" a better line of play for a player than the player himself has found. In this case the player has claimed nine tricks and (implicitly) conceded four. If this claim/concession is not contested then nine tricks to declarer is the result on the board. (TD will probably not even have been called) If opponents object with a statement that they cannot take more than three tricks (Law 79A2) and this objection is agreed upon then ten tricks to declarer is the result on the board. (TD may or may not have been called) If the claim is contested the Director must try the claim, will immediately see that the nine tricks are certain and rule nine tricks to declarer. If declarer later (within the correction period) wants to withdraw the concession part of his claim for a total of ten tricks won (Law 71 A2) then the Director must similarly try this request, will probably find it correct and rule ten tricks to declarer. Regards Sven PS.: You should make all your posts to blml in "plain text". Avoid "HTML" and "Rich Text" formats. From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 13 13:13:39 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 07:13:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <001501c98dcc$61d7d7b0$25878710$@no> References: <180079.88758.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <001501c98dcc$61d7d7b0$25878710$@no> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 06:15:30 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of PO Sundelin >> For my question I change (back) to >> Ax,AKQ,Qxx,AQJTx >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> xxx,xxx,Kxx, K98x >> >> >> West has KQJ,xxx,AJT,xxxx and leads a heart. >> Would all you TDs bother to look at the East-West hands >> when declarer claims nine tricks? >> >> Declarer cashes the nine claimed tricks and exits with a spade. >> There is no way declarer can escape a diamond trick (except >> by ducking from both hands). Note how carefully I gave West >> ununblockable spades... There is no way that East can get in. >> >> So the question repeated if you lost track during the stage >> setting: Will/should a TD force the tenth trick upon the nine-trick >> claimer? > > The short answer is NO. > > TD shall never "find" a better line of play for a player than the player > himself has found. In this case the player has claimed nine tricks and > (implicitly) conceded four. > > If this claim/concession is not contested then nine tricks to declarer > is the result on the board. (TD will probably not even have been called) > > If opponents object with a statement that they cannot take more than > three tricks (Law 79A2) and this objection is agreed upon then ten > tricks to declarer is the result on the board. (TD may or may not have > been called) > > If the claim is contested the Director must try the claim, will > immediately see that the nine tricks are certain and rule nine tricks to > declarer. > > If declarer later (within the correction period) wants to withdraw the > concession part of his claim for a total of ten tricks won (Law 71 A2) > then the Director must similarly try this request, will probably find it > correct and rule ten tricks to declarer. L71 says that the concession of the fourth trick should be cancelled. I agree that if the director doesn't notice that the fourth trick cannot be lost by any means, and no one notifies the director, then the ruling will be that the concession stands. It is not the director's job to automatically sort through the opponent's cards to see if declarer would make one more trick. I'm just saying that L71 kicks in by itself. Hmmm, suppose the claim for 9 tricks is accepted, then another contestant, not at the table, contests the claim? I think L71 is clear. Bob From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 13:50:58 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:50:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej] > That is not a question of experience, that is a question of logic. Nigel, > give me *one* example when the hesitator gains something, you may invent it > if you wish. > > [Nigel] > It's easy to produce examples. It's harder to get agreement about bidding judgement. But here goes... Not so easy, if you couldn't produce a sensible one... > At teams, at equal vulnerability, partner deals and passes, RHO opens 1N (12-14). You've agreed to play Sharples and you hesitate over what to bid. > [1] You hold S:Axxxx H:Axxx D:xxx C:Q. You have the right shape to try a Sharples 2D but in this context, you think it would be dangerous. If you pass after hesitating, however, partner may be inhibited from taking his normal action; so you finally decide that bidding is the lesser risk. Partner has S:Kxxxx H:Kx D:xx C:Jxxx, so you reach a lucky making game. I don't see any problem. > [2] You hold S:QJxxx H:QJxx D:xxx C:Q. Again you have the right shape for 2D under your methods, but realise, after thought, that your values are woefully inadequate. You think bidding would be dangerous, especially as partner will place you with a stronger hand. Hence you pass. Partner had intended to protect with a brave 2N overcall on his S:x H:x D:QJT9x C:Axxxxx but your hesitation indicates values and so deters him from bidding. If your side had competed, then even 2DX would have cost 800 against a part-score, so your hesitation resulted in a narrow escape. First, your example is completely faulty - even short thinking with this hand is a huge overbid, balancing with partner's hand is silly, he perfectly knows without any hesitation that you have at least 5-4 in majors (so poor hand when you didn't bid), therefore I don't think that the hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding. But for now I will assume that hesitation with your example hand is normal, that partner has normal balance (although with pass as a LA) and that the hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding. So now let's consider did something a) unlawful b) unethical c) harmful to the opponents happen. ra) of course all was fully lawful - thinking having a bridge problem is lawful, partner's pass is lawful (even forced by the laws) rb) of course all was fully ethical - thinking was done because of having a bridge problem, partner's pass is ethical (he properly bended backwards not to use UI) rc) harder question, on this deal they lost their 800, so at first look it seems to be a loss, but taking 10 similar deals into consideration on 9/10, maybe 8/10 they will easily gain because your partnership won't achieve an optimal contract, restricted by hesitation. Here they just became unlucky. As you can see, unless the hesitation is untoward, i.e. made deliberately with poor hand to stop partner from bidding, the following happenings are fully appropriate and consistent with bridge spirit. Imagine that you are playing with your friend. At one point in the auction you have a difficult decision, hesitate, and decide eventually to pass. Your partner wanted to bid, but now his pass is barely a LA, so he makes it. Your pair loses a very good game, but it appears that layouts are awful, suits do not split, finesses lose and you end with just making and a full top (on other tables the opponents were not preempting so actively). Do you think that your partnership made something bad? That the opponents should get redress? Luck is an integral part of bridge. Again, in 10 similar deals your opponents will gain 8/9 tops and 1/2 zeros, so on average your hesitation is highly beneficial to them. That is exactly the same mechanism as in the case of misbids or punting a contract after you know that partner has to pass forced by law. If you really had your example in mind when ranting about experts taking advantage of hesitations, then you simply have misconceived ideas. The laws clearly state that it is forbidden to infract them deliberately, but if it happens unintentionally and the infractor pays provided penalty, it is not forbidden to gain anything. You may agree or disagree with that, but anyway hesitating with a bridge reason is not an infraction, so how could it be "grey area", murky or your similar notions, if it is clearly and fully lawful and appropriate? On average the pair will lose much, but on single deal they may gain, as well as they may gain because of misbid or totally silly call/play. Pure luck. Just bridge. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 14:13:06 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:13:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4994B09D.7090201@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <004301c98ddc$cf250080$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Maciej] > Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - pass > and bid. > > a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop > bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it overhasty > or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not always > deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner from bidding > if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result in suspension) > > [Nigel] > We've been discussing Maciej's other examples, but for interest, may we revisit his first example (a): > > Assume a context in which a few ordinary players bid, but for most experts pass is clear. The expert hesitates and passes. This inhibits his pick-up partner from making his normal bid - a bid that would have turned out badly. The director suspects that the expert may have hesitated deliberately to stop his partner bidding; the expert expresses surprize and insists that he thought he had a problem. I've not met a case where a director ruled against a partnership when a player passed after his expert partner hesitated and passed. Has Maciej encountered such a ruling? On what law would such a ruling be based? L73 gives many options to rule against the player who hesitates without a bridge reason or deliberately ("partners shall not communicate..."). Of course it is always a question of judgment, it is necessary to give the hand to other experts and see what they would say. Regards Maciej From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 13 14:40:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:40:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net> <002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4995784D.40103@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : > Axxxx H:Axxx D:xxx C:Q : [you could make a] > Sharples 2D but in this context, you think it would be dangerous. If you > pass after hesitating, however, partner may be inhibited from taking his > normal action; so you finally decide that bidding is the lesser risk. > Partner has S:Kxxxx H:Kx D:xx C:Jxxx, so you reach a lucky making game. > > I don't see any problem. > > AG : neither do I. You're winning, not from having hesitated, but from having tried to avoid embarrassing partner. You deserve it. >> [2] You hold S:QJxxx H:QJxx D:xxx C:Q. Again you have the right shape for >> > 2D under your methods, but realise, after thought, that your values are > woefully inadequate. You think bidding would be dangerous, especially as > partner will place you with a stronger hand. Hence you pass. Partner had > intended to protect with a brave 2N overcall on his S:x H:x D:QJT9x C:Axxxxx > but your hesitation indicates values and so deters him from bidding. If your > side had competed, then even 2DX would have cost 800 against a part-score, > so your hesitation resulted in a narrow escape. > AG : so, bidiing with close values but some top tricks can be rewarding, but one should avoid bidding on zilch. No big news. Notice that, if partner had the 5224 hand from your 1st example, you should have bid. > But for now I will assume that hesitation with your example hand is normal, > that partner has normal balance (although with pass as a LA) and that the > hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding. > > So now let's consider did something > > a) unlawful > > b) unethical > > c) harmful to the opponents > > happen. > > ra) of course all was fully lawful - thinking having a bridge problem is > lawful, partner's pass is lawful (even forced by the laws) > AG : nope. If partner bids, he could be deprived of benefits from doing it, but he isn't compelled to pass by any law. And, in case you were cutting a long story short, please notice that this misconception about "barred" status is too common among ordinary players, so we should be careful in our statements. > If you really had your example in mind when ranting about experts taking > advantage of hesitations, then you simply have misconceived ideas. The laws > clearly state that it is forbidden to infract them deliberately, but if it > happens unintentionally and the infractor pays provided penalty, it is not > forbidden to gain anything. AG : just consider the case of the dropped honor card which turns out to be the right lead. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 13 14:42:44 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:42:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <004301c98ddc$cf250080$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4994B09D.7090201@talktalk.net> <004301c98ddc$cf250080$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499578D4.5050707@ulb.ac.be> Bystry a ?crit : >> [Maciej] >> Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - pass >> and bid. >> >> a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to stop >> bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it overhasty >> or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not always >> deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner from >> > bidding > >> if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result in suspension) >> >> [Nigel] >> We've been discussing Maciej's other examples, but for interest, may we >> > revisit his first example (a): > >> Assume a context in which a few ordinary players bid, but for most experts >> > pass is clear. The expert hesitates and passes. This inhibits his pick-up > partner from making his normal bid - a bid that would have turned out badly. > The director suspects that the expert may have hesitated deliberately to > stop his partner bidding; the expert expresses surprize and insists that he > thought he had a problem. I've not met a case where a director ruled against > a partnership when a player passed after his expert partner hesitated and > passed. Has Maciej encountered such a ruling? On what law would such a > ruling be based? > AG : it could happen. 73D1 seems a good start : you should avoid tempo variations that could be favorable to your side. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 17:10:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:10:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) In-Reply-To: <001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net> <49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi> <001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <3CFC6D97-FB98-4A02-A978-2F0B91AC8E42@starpower.net> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Bystry wrote: >> I don't speak "reverse hesitation", but only situation, when >> expert has >> problem, and he has used too much time and therefore there is UI- >> issue. >> The best strategy for him is obvious: He must use select call, any >> call, >> that maximize partnerships expected value of this deal. He must make >> also slightly antipercentage calls. So if he select pass, it must >> suggest not bid to pard, if don't have clear bid. > > Error in logic. Pass after hesitation still shows a *better* hand > than pass > without hesitation. Partner assumes a normal pass without UI, now > he knows > that the hesitator has more than normal pass, so bidding is still > suggested. > >> Juuso Leikola It cuts either way. A particularly conservative player will pass any marginal hand without hesitation, so a huddle might normally suggest a better hand with which he (spent time looking for but) could not find any suitably descriptive call. A particluarly aggressive player will bid on any marginal hand without hesitation, so a huddle might normally suggest a worse hand with which he could not find any suitable justification for upgrading to some bid. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 17:32:17 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:32:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <4994423A.3080405@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : >> Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position - >> pass and bid. >> a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants >> to stop >> bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it >> overhasty or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of >> UI, not >> always deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner >> from bidding if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should >> result >> in suspension) > > AG : could we imagine to use random tempo, even without screens ? That > is, you'll sometimes "hesitate" after you've made your obvious > decision. > To avoid being called a c***t in case a), you'd rather signal this to > opponents. > > I tried it, it works, but it's difficult to ascertain that the pattern > of tempi is truly random. > > Is this procedure Law-ful ? It wouldn't seem to be. L73A2 prohibits "undue" hesitation; TFLB doesn't define "undue", but it is normally assumed to be within the context of the game. This is widely understood as "you may not hesitate unless you have a problem", which the vast majority of players would characterize as a prohibition against obvious cheating. More to the point, the principle seems to be needed to sensibly interpret L73 in toto. L73A2 specifically permits hesitations required by reguation, and L73D1 specifically permits hesitations which are unintentional; it must, to be read meaningfully, prohibit any hesitations which are neither. And that's even before we get to the prohibition against prolonging play unnecessarily. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 18:44:48 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:44:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net><002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995784D.40103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c98e02$c4a387a0$15844c59@chello.pl> > ra) of course all was fully lawful - thinking having a bridge problem is > lawful, partner's pass is lawful (even forced by the laws) > AG : nope. If partner bids, he could be deprived of benefits from doing it, but he isn't compelled to pass by any law. And, in case you were cutting a long story short, please notice that this misconception about "barred" status is too common among ordinary players, so we should be careful in our statements. [Maciej] No, this time I wasn't shortcutting and there is no misconception. Of course "barred" is a bad word, but if your partner has only two LAs (pass and bid) and bid is demonstrably suggested by UI over pass, then bidding is an infraction (L16B1(a)), in other words pass is forced by the laws. That doesn't mean that your partner cannot physically bid, but by doing it consciously (i.e. knowing that pass is a LA) he infracts L72B1 too. If he does it unintentionally he breaks only L16B1(a) and won't be additionally penalised, otherwise PP is usually appropriate. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 19:03:04 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:03:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net><49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi><001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <3CFC6D97-FB98-4A02-A978-2F0B91AC8E42@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001701c98e05$518940e0$15844c59@chello.pl> > On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Bystry wrote: > > >> I don't speak "reverse hesitation", but only situation, when > >> expert has > >> problem, and he has used too much time and therefore there is UI- > >> issue. > >> The best strategy for him is obvious: He must use select call, any > >> call, > >> that maximize partnerships expected value of this deal. He must make > >> also slightly antipercentage calls. So if he select pass, it must > >> suggest not bid to pard, if don't have clear bid. > > > > Error in logic. Pass after hesitation still shows a *better* hand > > than pass > > without hesitation. Partner assumes a normal pass without UI, now > > he knows > > that the hesitator has more than normal pass, so bidding is still > > suggested. > > > >> Juuso Leikola > > It cuts either way. A particularly conservative player will pass any > marginal hand without hesitation, so a huddle might normally suggest > a better hand with which he (spent time looking for but) could not > find any suitably descriptive call. A particluarly aggressive player > will bid on any marginal hand without hesitation, so a huddle might > normally suggest a worse hand with which he could not find any > suitable justification for upgrading to some bid. Fine, Eric, but still the hesitation suggests a *better* hand than classic pass for that player. We have to assume that his partner is aware of his tendencies, so will bid to (very poor - below normal) range without any UI. Now UI suggests that the player has something about (below normal - normal), so if it suggests anything, it is still bidding, not pass. It is really a simple logic and I'm shocked that some people seem not to see it - excluding deliberate cheating, pass with hesitation always suggests a *better* hand than pass without hesitation, no matter what is the level of the aggresiveness of the player, no matter what the reception of his partner. The only situation in which it could suggest a worse hand would be if the player was overagressive and his partner hurraoptimistic, always assuming maximum, but it is completely illogical and such partnership is certainly not "expert" and not dangerous, their usual score range will start with -500. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 19:15:58 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:15:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <69A07A8D-11BA-4EEA-BFD1-16067C43EE6F@starpower.net> On Feb 12, 2009, at 12:34 PM, Bystry wrote: >> [Maciej on example 2] >> It is a well known phenomenon, you didn't discover America. We >> call it >> "bonus for standing partnership". But of course you are exaggerating, >> look at my earlier reasoning and you will find that hesitating is >> usually harmful. And remember that there is something like "bridge >> logic", that in many positions hesitations may mean only one >> thing, in >> some other the reason for the hesitation is highly probable. And >> remember that good TDs will take the skill and the longevity of the >> partnership into consideration, so in close cases they might tend to >> rule "demostrably suggested". >> >> {Nige1] >> Most of what I write seems obvious but I am still relieved when a >> BLMLer confirms my esperience. Thank you Maciej. But how can the >> TD rule >> as you recommend. Suppose the unauthorised information recipient >> (UIR) >> has 2 logical options. As I understand current law, The TD must >> decide >> *which* of these options was suggested over the other, often by >> polling >> the player's peers. If they can't decide which option the UI >> demonstrably suggested (without knowing which option was actually >> chosen) then the director may not rule against the UIR. > > You are tilting at toy windmills. In close cases standing > partnerships will > sometimes slize through, right. So what? They have more advantages > caused by > longevity of their partnership - knowledge about each other's > skill, habits, > agressiveness, leading tendencies. They gain because of short > hitches, face > expressions, certainty of the hand etc, subconsciously received (no > cheating, mere use of UI but involuntary and practically > undetectable). > Sorry Nigel, I everyday see much more ordinary infractions, > flagrant UI, MI > to care even a little bit about the cases which are relatively rare > and > nothing gross happens. "Taking advantage of partner's hesitation" can be viewed a two-step process consisting of, first, inferring from the hesitation that partner's call was not obvious, and only then, second, taking whatever advantage can be gained from that inference. In real life cases, we normally presume the first automatically, but the law requires us to find the latter only when the advantage is "demonstrable". Lacking complete dossiers on all of our players, we evaluate "demonstrable" using bridge logic and peer evaluations. It is often pointed out, however, that there are "well-wired" partnerships with thousands of deals of experience, who cannot help but acquire knowledge of one another's tendencies of which they may not even be consciously aware. For those partnerships, this knowledge, combined with the knowledge that partner has taken a less- than-obvious call, may provide for inferences that go well beyond what we would generally consider "demonstrable". Thus some argue that when a player "reads" his partner's hesitation correctly, it provides an element of evidence that he had some knowledge of partner's tendencies beyond the "demonstrable", to be weighed against whatever evidence may be offered to the contrary. This is true. But Maciej is right to call this tilting at windmills. A well wired- partnership with intimate knowledge of each other's tendencies is not only capable of taking "not demonstrable" inferences from the knowledge that partner "had trouble" finding a call, but is likely to be at least equally -- indeed, among less experienced players, far more -- capable of inferring that partner had trouble find a call from cues not sufficiently overt to be characterized as hesitations (Maciej gives examples above). IOW, if I know you so well that I can figure out what your problem is where others couldn't, I also know you so well that I can figure out that you had a problem where others couldn't. We call that "telepathy"; we don't allow it, but we recognize that we can't detect its existence. Directors and committees don't worry about it because they know that virtually all the genuinely worrisome instances do not come to their attention. The only way to prevent well-wired partnerships from gaining an extra- legal advantage over others is to prohibit long-standing regular partnerships, and the only way to detect it afterwards is to keep complete dossiers on all of our players. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 13 19:25:06 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:25:06 -0800 Subject: [blml] Boston NABC+ cases Message-ID: <694eadd40902131025s2d0b6ccchd01ef0a8101272bd@mail.gmail.com> Here are my draft comments on the NABC+ cases from Boston: 1. The poll results and the AC's judgment surprised me so I took my own poll. The questions and results are available here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pZJesnDzgUg6coOKRy-_eZA 16 players chose to Pass, 5 bid 2S, and 16 bid 2NT. Most, no matter what call they chose, seriously considered at least one other. My poll results should make it clear that both Pass and 2S are Logical Alternatives. The TD ought to have polled more players. Here his odds of finding four 2NT bidders were about 3.5%. We were unlucky, but polling more players would reduce the role of that luck. Suppose 80% of players would bid 2NT, most after seriously considering Pass. Then Pass is still a LA, but 41% of the time each of the four respondents will bid 2NT. This is much too high a chance of making an incorrect ruling. The AC ought to be a safeguard against this kind of result. The AC cited the relevant portion of Law 16, so we know they had it in mind. Apparently their judgment differs substantially from mine. I can't say for sure what went wrong, but we get a hint when the write-up states "The committee knows that there are people in the event that would pass 2?." I have argued for years that TDs and ACs ought to take a more expansive view of LAs. Here the AC realized that some players would judge differently than they themselves. A little more introspection might have let them conclude that they could easily be mistaken as to how many such players there are. It should only take one AC member to come to this conclusion. If he believes a call is a LA his colleagues should give that opinion great weight. I don't recall why I didn't give the case to the AC as a blind preview, and I regret not doing do. A blind preview might have helped the AC members realize that the decision was a close one. 2. I don't understand East's argument about bidding 3S instead of Blackwood. It seems to me that if he discovers his side has all the keycards he can ask for kings and West will know as much as if West had himself bid Blackwood. I have great sympathy for the dissent, but I agree with the TD and AC rulings. I see no reason West couldn't hold a hand like K KQxx xxx AKTxx. 3. The TD ruling was a stretch, since he didn't have access to the information the AC did. I think given what he knew he ought to have ruled for the non-offenders. In effect I believe he made the right ruling for the wrong reason. Had the NS bidding notes been available during screening I think EW would likely have dropped their appeal. 4. EW ought to have been asked whether they had ever played transfers in this auction. If so it colors the auction differently for them, and it's information to which NS were entitled. I'd also have liked to ask West why he didn't bid 5S over 5C. I think this case was one where "you had to be there." I don't know how I'd have ruled had I been present -- I cannot fault the TD and AC rulings. 5. I like the AC's approach -- I think they improved on the TD's ruling. I'm delighted to see that everyone understood that EW were entitled to know the actual NS agreement, even though North had forgotten it. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 13 19:27:20 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:27:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ cases Message-ID: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> Here are my draft comments on the Non-NABC+ cases from Boston. These are appeals heard by a panel of TDs. The cases themselves can be found at http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Boston2008.html 1. East's reason for hesitating is profoundly irrelevant. The TD's ruling looks right, but I'm surprised he didn't take a poll. Without poll results to back up the TD's judgment I don't agree that the case was slim ? I see merit to the appeal. 2. Good work all around. I agree that the appeal had no merit. 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it 4. The poll of only two players was too small to determine that Pass was not a logical alternative. That said, pass was certainly not logical ? this appeal had no merit. 5. This was a bizarre case. EW committed the only infraction, unnecessary delay of game. They then appeared to want to profit thereby, winning a trick they could not have obtained legitimately. This appeal had no merit. If I could find a way to penalize EW I would. 6. South was due a procedural penalty for her violation of correct procedure. Yes, our rules for alerting and announcing are too complicated, and not everyone knows that bids above 3NT are neither alertable nor announceable after the first round of the auction. That said, "I'm taking it as" should not be part of anyone's bidding vocabulary. This appeal had no merit, and the initial and inexplicable TD ruling does not grant it any. 7. The rulings look right but the write-up is missing a couple important points. First, what did the BIT suggest? The score can be adjusted only if it suggested bidding, though I agree that it did. Second, what does this mean? "Two would not consider it (pass) if told of the break in tempo." I suppose it might mean that those two players believed that the BIT demonstrably suggested bidding, but it's a curious and ambiguous phrase. That said, I see no merit to the appeal. 8. It would be nice to know how long North hesitated. Since the TD judged there was a BIT I presume North waited longer than the ten seconds required after West's skip bid. I see no merit to the appeal. I can't imagine how NS thought they might prevail, given the results of the poll. 9. How many players were polled? Enquiring minds want to know! That said, I agree that the appeal lacked merit. The Ruling section of the write-up is slightly confused. North's hesitation is not relevant since South bid only 5S. All that matters is that South's hesitation demonstrably suggested bidding on. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Fri Feb 13 19:45:17 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:45:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net> <002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net> {Maciej] First, your example is completely faulty - even short thinking with this hand is a huge overbid, balancing with partner's hand is silly, he perfectly knows without any hesitation that you have at least 5-4 in majors (so poor hand when you didn't bid), therefore I don't think that the hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding. But for now I will assume that hesitation with your example hand is normal, that partner has normal balance (although with pass as a LA) and that the hesitation demonstrably suggests bidding. So now let's consider did something a) unlawful b) unethical c) harmful to the opponents happen. ra) of course all was fully lawful - thinking having a bridge problem is lawful, partner's pass is lawful (even forced by the laws) rb) of course all was fully ethical - thinking was done because of having a bridge problem, partner's pass is ethical (he properly bended backwards not to use UI) rc) harder question, on this deal they lost their 800, so at first look it seems to be a loss, but taking 10 similar deals into consideration on 9/10, maybe 8/10 they will easily gain because your partnership won't achieve an optimal contract, restricted by hesitation. Here they just became unlucky. As you can see, unless the hesitation is untoward, i.e. made deliberately with poor hand to stop partner from bidding, the following happenings are fully appropriate and consistent with bridge spirit. Imagine that you are playing with your friend. At one point in the auction you have a difficult decision, hesitate, and decide eventually to pass. Your partner wanted to bid, but now his pass is barely a LA, so he makes it. Your pair loses a very good game, but it appears that layouts are awful, suits do not split, finesses lose and you end with just making and a full top (on other tables the opponents were not preempting so actively). Do you think that your partnership made something bad? That the opponents should get redress? Luck is an integral part of bridge. Again, in 10 similar deals your opponents will gain 8/9 tops and 1/2 zeros, so on average your hesitation is highly beneficial to them. That is exactly the same mechanism as in the case of misbids or punting a contract after you know that partner has to pass forced by law. If you really had your example in mind when ranting about experts taking advantage of hesitations, then you simply have misconceived ideas. The laws clearly state that it is forbidden to infract them deliberately, but if it happens unintentionally and the infractor pays provided penalty, it is not forbidden to gain anything. You may agree or disagree with that, but anyway hesitating with a bridge reason is not an infraction, so how could it be "grey area", murky or your similar notions, if it is clearly and fully lawful and appropriate? On average the pair will lose much, but on single deal they may gain, as well as they may gain because of misbid or totally silly call/play. Pure luck. Just bridge. [Nige1] If Maciej reads magazine bidding quizzes, he may accept that experts often give *conflicting* answers to bidding problems (ranging from pass and double to leaps to a grand-slam); and some experts rate their own choice as *clear-cut*. That is why I was reluctant to gave example hands and Maciej's reaction is as expected. Also, I stipulated that Maciej could adjust strengths to suit his prejudices; furthermore, in a tempo-break ruling, it does not matter much what Maciej or I think. It matters more what the player's peers think. Hence I also stipulated the player's peers judgement :) I'm just repeating myself. Sorry. The bad news is that I despair of convincing Maciej that an expert hesitation often suggests a pass to his partner. The good news is that Maciej's "the rub of the green" argument is plausible. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 19:48:12 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:48:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <4994B09D.7090201@talktalk.net> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net> <004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <4994B09D.7090201@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Maciej] > Let's say that the player has two possibilities in a given position > - pass > and bid. > > a) clear pass, the player has an awful hand and definitely wants to > stop > bidding - he should pass normally in tempo, but he might make it > overhasty > or with emphasis (more or less flagrant transmition of UI, not always > deliberate), or he might hesitate deliberately to stop partner from > bidding > if partner's pass is a LA (flagrant cheating, should result in > suspension) > > [Nigel] > We've been discussing Maciej's other examples, but for interest, > may we revisit his first example (a): > > Assume a context in which a few ordinary players bid, but for most > experts pass is clear. The expert hesitates and passes. This > inhibits his pick-up partner from making his normal bid - a bid > that would have turned out badly. The director suspects that the > expert may have hesitated deliberately to stop his partner bidding; > the expert expresses surprize and insists that he thought he had a > problem. I've not met a case where a director ruled against a > partnership when a player passed after his expert partner hesitated > and passed. Has Maciej encountered such a ruling? On what law would > such a ruling be based? L73F. "...the Director determines that an innocent player has drawn a false inference..." and that this "...results in damage to an innocent opponent...". Note the (careful?) distinction between "innocent player" and "innocent opponent". Of course, when a player "insists that he thought he had a problem", the TD, in evaluating the credibility of that statement, will take into account whether in fact he did have a problem. He will thus be far harsher on an expert than on a bunny, which should gratify Nigel. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 20:35:25 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:35:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Horses for courses (was Technical) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21A05F3E-0678-488D-8F25-8BE2D1CE71DF@starpower.net> On Feb 12, 2009, at 10:08 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Maciej Bystry asked: > > [snip] > >> I'm simply asking whether I, as a foreigner, am obliged to know >> what do you call second/fourth when coming to play in England. > > Richard Hills replies: > > Some young Polish experts remind me of: > > "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may > not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in > card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully > disclosed to your opponents." (ABF Alert Regulation) > > Some young Polish experts remind me of: > > "Bridge is not a game of secret messages; it is necessary that > all players understand and practice the principles of Full > Disclosure and Active Ethics. Ethical bridge players will > recognize the obligation to give complete explanations." (ACBL > Alert Regulation) > > Some young Polish experts remind me of: > > "While specific questions may elicit the actual facts that the > questioner wishes to know, there is a danger that they may lead > to incomplete answers. For example, if a 3C overcall is Ghestem, > showing a hand with two specified suits, and if an opponent > merely says "Weak or strong?" it is not unreasonable for a player > to answer "Weak", since this is true (and since more complete > answers have been known to elicit comments such as "I did not ask > that.")." (EBU Orange Book, clause 3B9, first paragraph) > > So both ABF and ACBL Appeals Committees or Regulating Authorities > would rule against a player who gave an accurate but incomplete > and therefore misleading explanation. But an EBU Appeals > Committee and/or Regulating Authority could and did rule in > favour of a player who gave an accurate but incomplete and > therefore misleading explanation. > > What's the problem? > > The young Polish expert Maciej Bystry is not the problem, since > he doubtless gives comprehensively detailed explanations whenever > he encounters strange opponents who may come from a different > bridge culture. > > No, the problem is in the dilatory EBU Law and Ethics Committee, > whom despite several complaints (from John Probst, etc) are yet > to repeal the first paragraph of Orange Book clause 3B9. I think this misunderstands the nature of Maciej's original problem. In English and American bridge circles, "second and fourth" functions semantically as a designation. But the object of the designation is unfamiliar in Poland, so it sounds like a description. Were it a description, it would be woefully incomplete and misleading -- and Richard's evaluation of the problem on point. So much so that one could argue that it is patently so incomplete and so likely to be misleading were it a description that it should be undertstood not to be meant to function as such. Maciej, in England, is no more "obliged to know" what we call "second and fourth" than I, in Poland, would be obliged to know what they call "Bhutan opening" (I don't, BTW). But his English opponents should not be faulted, any more than my hypothetical Polish ones would be, for thinking that if he didn't know what it meant, he would ask. We can't make laws that prevent every possible misunderstanding between players who lack a common native language, and this is one of those cases. Sensible folks can manage to find equity extra-legally. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 22:09:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:09:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions In-Reply-To: <180079.88758.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <180079.88758.qm@web23701.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <91C953CD-01F4-4781-A199-4E9A13A1E5E3@starpower.net> On Feb 12, 2009, at 4:09 PM, PO Sundelin wrote: > For my question I change (back) to > Ax,AKQ,Qxx,AQJTx > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > xxx,xxx,Kxx, K98x > > West has KQJ,xxx,AJT,xxxx and leads a heart. > Would all you TDs bother to look at the East-West hands when > declarer claims nine tricks? > > Declarer cashes the nine claimed tricks and exits with a spade. > There is no way declarer can escape a diamond trick (except by > ducking from both hands). Note how carefully I gave West > ununblockable spades... There is no way that East can get in. > > So the question repeated if you lost track during the stage > setting: Will/should a TD force the tenth trick upon the nine- > trick claimer? No. But if the claimer notices the position after he has claimed and asks for the tenth trick, the TD should give it to him. L70 does not allow for lines of play to be "forced"; it permits only that they be "accept[ed] from claimer". Thus the TD need not bother to look at the E-W hands unless prompted to do so by a player. Which is the only sensible answer, because in most cases where it would otherwise matter he will not have been called. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 22:21:05 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:21:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horses for courses (was Technical) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801c98e20$fb426560$15844c59@chello.pl> > Bette Davis (1908-1989): > > "Some young Hollywood starlets remind me of my grandmother's old > farmhouse -- all painted up nice on the front side, a big swing > on the backside, and nothing whatsoever in the attic." > > Maciej Bystry asked: > > [snip] > > >I'm simply asking whether I, as a foreigner, am obliged to know > >what do you call second/fourth when coming to play in England. > > Richard Hills replies: > > Some young Polish experts remind me of: > > "It is an essential principle of the game of bridge that you may > not have secret agreements with partner, either in bidding or in > card play. Your agreements must be fully available and fully > disclosed to your opponents." (ABF Alert Regulation) > > Some young Polish experts remind me of: > > "Bridge is not a game of secret messages; it is necessary that > all players understand and practice the principles of Full > Disclosure and Active Ethics. Ethical bridge players will > recognize the obligation to give complete explanations." (ACBL > Alert Regulation) > > Some young Polish experts remind me of: > > "While specific questions may elicit the actual facts that the > questioner wishes to know, there is a danger that they may lead > to incomplete answers. For example, if a 3C overcall is Ghestem, > showing a hand with two specified suits, and if an opponent > merely says "Weak or strong?" it is not unreasonable for a player > to answer "Weak", since this is true (and since more complete > answers have been known to elicit comments such as "I did not ask > that.")." (EBU Orange Book, clause 3B9, first paragraph) > > So both ABF and ACBL Appeals Committees or Regulating Authorities > would rule against a player who gave an accurate but incomplete > and therefore misleading explanation. But an EBU Appeals > Committee and/or Regulating Authority could and did rule in > favour of a player who gave an accurate but incomplete and > therefore misleading explanation. > > What's the problem? > > The young Polish expert Maciej Bystry is not the problem, since > he doubtless gives comprehensively detailed explanations whenever > he encounters strange opponents who may come from a different > bridge culture. > > No, the problem is in the dilatory EBU Law and Ethics Committee, > whom despite several complaints (from John Probst, etc) are yet > to repeal the first paragraph of Orange Book clause 3B9. You seem not to understand the problem. Whatever the explanation, I would have correctly filled SC with details. But have in mind that, especially in pairs tournaments, bridge players use shortcuts when giving spoken explanations. Deliberations whether it's correct or not won't help, it is reality. Second/fourth is a quite good approximate name for my system of leads. It is inappropriate as a name for English standard system of leads. So you have four real choices: - you may rule against everyone who uses "second/fourth" as an explanation. It would be certainly an equal treatment, but I doubt whether the players would accept it. There is always a SC if you need details, short descriptions may be enough in many cases. - you may rule against me on the basis that I should obtain knowledge about local English habits (not regulations!) - you may rule against English and not against me on the basis of technical correctness. - you may deny any ruling claiming that short descriptions are merely indicative and every player has an obligation to ask further or look at the SC. I'm trying to collect opinions which of the rulings above has BLMLers' support. Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 22:32:53 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:32:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horses for courses (was Technical) References: <21A05F3E-0678-488D-8F25-8BE2D1CE71DF@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001b01c98e22$a0d33bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> > I think this misunderstands the nature of Maciej's original problem. > In English and American bridge circles, "second and fourth" functions > semantically as a designation. But the object of the designation is > unfamiliar in Poland, so it sounds like a description. Were it a > description, it would be woefully incomplete and misleading -- and > Richard's evaluation of the problem on point. So much so that one > could argue that it is patently so incomplete and so likely to be > misleading were it a description that it should be undertstood not to > be meant to function as such. > > Maciej, in England, is no more "obliged to know" what we call "second > and fourth" than I, in Poland, would be obliged to know what they > call "Bhutan opening" (I don't, BTW). But his English opponents > should not be faulted, any more than my hypothetical Polish ones > would be, for thinking that if he didn't know what it meant, he would > ask. We can't make laws that prevent every possible misunderstanding > between players who lack a common native language, and this is one of > those cases. Sensible folks can manage to find equity extra-legally. Eric understood me much better, but still omits one important aspect. In USA system of leads similar to English is called Standard or Standard with MUD (I'm not sure), not second/fourth. I have some experience playing online against people from other countries and all of them understood 2/4 correctly, including US players (but probably not English ones, I don't see many on BBO). It's true that I'm playing mostly against good players, but I don't think that the differences in skill would matter. I wasn't aware of English habits until reading EBU casebooks, I always thought that they use American systems of leading. So if I came to play in England, not reading casebooks earlier, I would honestly think that 2/4 is an appropriate explanation which couldn't cause any harm. Now I know that and I would use detailed explanations, but what do you think, how many Polish (and probably not only) players are aware that English use misleading notion? So Eric is right, if both sides (or even only one) are aware of the possibility of misunderstanding, they would avoid it. But what with unethical ones who may try to gain because of technicalities and what with those who are not aware of the problem? I could agree with "equitable" solution, but what it is? 60/60? > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej PS Bhutan opening was of course invented by me ;-) From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 13 22:43:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:43:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) In-Reply-To: <001701c98e05$518940e0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net><49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi><001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl> <3CFC6D97-FB98-4A02-A978-2F0B91AC8E42@starpower.net> <001701c98e05$518940e0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <1729E5F2-82C0-4C0D-B2AF-8EB6BA81233B@starpower.net> On Feb 13, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Bystry wrote: >> It cuts either way. A particularly conservative player will pass any >> marginal hand without hesitation, so a huddle might normally suggest >> a better hand with which he (spent time looking for but) could not >> find any suitably descriptive call. A particluarly aggressive player >> will bid on any marginal hand without hesitation, so a huddle might >> normally suggest a worse hand with which he could not find any >> suitable justification for upgrading to some bid. > > Fine, Eric, but still the hesitation suggests a *better* hand than > classic > pass for that player. We have to assume that his partner is aware > of his > tendencies, so will bid to (very poor - below normal) range without > any UI. > Now UI suggests that the player has something about (below normal - > normal), > so if it suggests anything, it is still bidding, not pass. > > It is really a simple logic and I'm shocked that some people seem > not to see > it - excluding deliberate cheating, pass with hesitation always > suggests a > *better* hand than pass without hesitation, no matter what is the > level of > the aggresiveness of the player, no matter what the reception of his > partner. That is true, but unless his partner knows "what is the level of the agressiveness" it tells him nothing useful. > The only situation in which it could suggest a worse hand would be > if the player was overagressive and his partner hurraoptimistic, > always > assuming maximum, but it is completely illogical and such > partnership is > certainly not "expert" and not dangerous, their usual score range > will start > with -500. I have no problem with Maciej's "simple logic", but it starts from the premise that "we have to assume that his partner is aware of his tendencies", which I reject. While such an assumption might be "reasonable", it is obviously not generally "demonstrable", and it is my understanding that that specific change in the law was introduced (in 1997?) to preclude the adoption of Maciej's presumption. Not only do we not "have to" assume that the partner of the hesitator is aware of his tendencies, I believe we must not do so without some corroborating evidence beyond the mere coincidence of a huddle appearing to have been "correctly interpreted". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 13 23:12:19 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:12:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] Horses for courses (was Technical) In-Reply-To: <001b01c98e22$a0d33bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <21A05F3E-0678-488D-8F25-8BE2D1CE71DF@starpower.net> <001b01c98e22$a0d33bc0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <4995F043.90307@aol.com> This may be simplistic but I suggest (as I did with claims and I didn't seem to find universal acceptance there) that proper procedure be followed. That is: do not ask "is that Ghestem?" or "is that weak?" but ask what the bid means. And, as response, do not simply say "Ghestem" or "stayman" but describe the bid. What suits, the length, the strength, etc. Naturally, depending on how well you know the opponents you might use concise forms (if you are sure they understand you). JE Bystry schrieb: >> I think this misunderstands the nature of Maciej's original problem. >> In English and American bridge circles, "second and fourth" functions >> semantically as a designation. But the object of the designation is >> unfamiliar in Poland, so it sounds like a description. Were it a >> description, it would be woefully incomplete and misleading -- and >> Richard's evaluation of the problem on point. So much so that one >> could argue that it is patently so incomplete and so likely to be >> misleading were it a description that it should be undertstood not to >> be meant to function as such. >> >> Maciej, in England, is no more "obliged to know" what we call "second >> and fourth" than I, in Poland, would be obliged to know what they >> call "Bhutan opening" (I don't, BTW). But his English opponents >> should not be faulted, any more than my hypothetical Polish ones >> would be, for thinking that if he didn't know what it meant, he would >> ask. We can't make laws that prevent every possible misunderstanding >> between players who lack a common native language, and this is one of >> those cases. Sensible folks can manage to find equity extra-legally. > > Eric understood me much better, but still omits one important aspect. In USA > system of leads similar to English is called Standard or Standard with MUD > (I'm not sure), not second/fourth. I have some experience playing online > against people from other countries and all of them understood 2/4 > correctly, including US players (but probably not English ones, I don't see > many on BBO). It's true that I'm playing mostly against good players, but I > don't think that the differences in skill would matter. > > I wasn't aware of English habits until reading EBU casebooks, I always > thought that they use American systems of leading. So if I came to play in > England, not reading casebooks earlier, I would honestly think that 2/4 is > an appropriate explanation which couldn't cause any harm. Now I know that > and I would use detailed explanations, but what do you think, how many > Polish (and probably not only) players are aware that English use misleading > notion? > > So Eric is right, if both sides (or even only one) are aware of the > possibility of misunderstanding, they would avoid it. But what with > unethical ones who may try to gain because of technicalities and what with > those who are not aware of the problem? > > I could agree with "equitable" solution, but what it is? 60/60? > >> Eric Landau >> 1107 Dale Drive >> Silver Spring MD 20910 >> ehaa at starpower.net > > Regards > > Maciej > > PS Bhutan opening was of course invented by me ;-) > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Fri Feb 13 23:15:09 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:15:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net><002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl> > [Nige1] > If Maciej reads magazine bidding quizzes, he may accept that experts often give *conflicting* answers to bidding problems (ranging from pass and double to leaps to a grand-slam); and some experts rate their own choice as *clear-cut*. Of course they do. Weaker players similarly. But it is a general problem with polls/panels, you are seeking majority, not unanimity. And in UI cases small minority is enough to establish a LA. [Nigel] That is why I was reluctant to gave example hands and Maciej's reaction is as expected. Also, I stipulated that Maciej could adjust strengths to suit his prejudices; furthermore, in a tempo-break ruling, it does not matter much what Maciej or I think. It matters more what the player's peers think. Hence I also stipulated the player's peers judgement :) So I commented on your bad example, but later virtually assumed that the judgment is ok and answered your problem. [Nigel] > I'm just repeating myself. Sorry. The bad news is that I despair of convincing Maciej that an expert hesitation often suggests a pass to his partner. The good news is that Maciej's "the rub of the green" argument is plausible. And you will remain despairing, because expert hesitation-and-pass could not suggest pass, it still shows *more* than pass without UI (excluding my point a) from an earlier email). Unless you will understand this simple logic, I won't be able to convince you. Your example wasn't showing anything like that, hesitation-and-pass suggested bidding (I'm not using actual hands, only the idea), that's why in your point 1) the player decided to bid and achieved a good game. If he passed, his partner would be barred and they would lose. And the second one is exactly "rub of the green". I advise you to stop, throw away your perceived experiences and concentrate only on pure logic. Players - A and B. Value of hands a1,a2 (normal pass), a3, a4 (between pass and bid), a5, a6 (bid), the same for B - b(1-6). Statistically it is beneficial for AB to go higher if their hands are at least (a4;b3) or (a3;b4) or (a5;b2) or (a2;b5). Optimism, agressiveness, state of match, level of opponents etc may change this border, but it is not important, both of them know where does this border lie. Standard expectation is a2-a3, b2-b3 (it may look strange that I gave only one category a;b1 under the normal pass, but I assume situations in which there is knowledge from an earlier auction that the hands are not awful, most hesitations appear in competitive bidding, if anybody wants, he may give more categories and then a;b2 or below may be standard expectation). If A passes without any hesitation, B will bid with b4 (close decision) and better assuming average agressivness. If A passes with hesitation, he normally has something close to a3-a4, so B should bid with b3-b4, but now he can't, only with a5-a6 (closer to a6) there is no LA. If A passes with hesitation, and he is Nigel's nightmare expert, he has something close to a2-a3 (standard expectation!). B should bid with b4 and better, but he can't, only with b5-b6 (closer to a6) there is no LA. As we can see Nigel's theory that it is better to bid instead of pass after the hesitation in close situation is correct, although not overwhelmingly (with a4 A has to bid after the hesitation, with a3 it is profitable on average, with a2-a3 it is probably losing or even). And as we can see Nigel's theory about profitable hesitations suggesting pass is false, only by hesitating with a1-a2 (cheating) A may gain anything, in remaining cases AB will be statistically harmed, although of course in single cases they will be lucky, classic "rub of the green". That's the last time I'm trying to explain it, let all those who still disagree remain with their opinions. Regards Maciej From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 13 23:18:12 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:18:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] a question In-Reply-To: <49952668.5090009@skynet.be> References: <49849E1E.4040809@aol.com> <49857F4C.5050502@skynet.be><000101c98467$08ef05b0$1acd1110$@no> <4985B4B4.3010506@skynet.be><000d01c98493$cf2c0f80$15844c59@chello.pl> <000001c98499$a89c5450$f9d4fcf0$@com> <001701c9853c$4738b340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49870E81.8060505@skynet.be> <49872A09.80002@aol.com> <498801B7.10902@skynet.be> <49884250.6010601@aol.com> <4988570F.8030009@skynet.be> <498889D3.4000000@aol.com> <49896801.3020401@skynet.be><498F9B12.7060708@verizon.net> <498FE6F7.20000@skynet.be><3C3541946A4640BBB49ECDEE77CF44E8@JOHN> <49905474.8040205@skynet.be><6D9E5F87268C4E4BB6B108768A4B9ABE@JOHN> <499141A6.6000502@skynet.be> <003601c98bab$8b822340$15844c59@chello.pl> <49928FCE.8000700@skynet.be> <49949FF8.8080603@aol.com> <49952668.5090009@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4995F1A4.5040308@aol.com> Okay, I suggest (examples) "good", "high", perhaps even "master". If you wish to say that there are no more trumps out I suggest "last trump". I don't really understand why that should be so important (as you say) but okay, if it is important to you, who am I to quibble? Incidentally in my previous response I forgot to mention that I have also worked as a copyreader and proofreader. But I don't think that is important. But then there is much I find relatively unimportant. Anyway, if you wish to say that the trump is the last one (no more out) I suggest "last trump". What's the problem? JE Herman De Wael schrieb: > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> Please allow a minor semantic quibble. As a native English speaker, >> translator and one-time teacher I have problems with the expression that >> a trump is "free". What possible meaning could that have in correct >> English? I can understand that a trump is high, or good, or the last >> trump (and probably a few other expressions) but inventing new terms, >> which aren't correct English, does not help us in my opinion. JE >> > > Jeff, I did write once before (in incorrect english which was corrected > by Grattan) that you, as the native English speaker, were allowed to > find a better term. > > I used the term "last" originally, and when someone used "free", I > picked up on that term. If you consider it incorrect, then please > suggest some other term. > > But what I meant to say was something very specific. The word "high" > won't do, since that implies that the suit contains no outstanding > cards, higher than the ones claimer holds - and even then it's hard to > describe, but we know what we mean. > > When I say trumps are "free", I mean that there are no more trumps _at > all_ in opponents' hands. It is this distinction which I find important > and which I wanted to describe with a single word. > > OK? > > Herman. > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From darkbystry at wp.pl Sat Feb 14 00:52:05 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 00:52:05 +0100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) References: <49932F5D.8000502@talktalk.net><49940B83.9050103@jldata.fi><001601c98d23$c23206c0$15844c59@chello.pl><3CFC6D97-FB98-4A02-A978-2F0B91AC8E42@starpower.net><001701c98e05$518940e0$15844c59@chello.pl> <1729E5F2-82C0-4C0D-B2AF-8EB6BA81233B@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001d01c98e36$136a94e0$15844c59@chello.pl> > > It is really a simple logic and I'm shocked that some people seem > > not to see > > it - excluding deliberate cheating, pass with hesitation always > > suggests a > > *better* hand than pass without hesitation, no matter what is the > > level of > > the aggresiveness of the player, no matter what the reception of his > > partner. > > That is true, but unless his partner knows "what is the level of the > agressiveness" it tells him nothing useful. If his partner doesn't know, then it is not an expert partnership which Nigel abhors so much. And still we would have to assume deliberate hesitation with a poor hand to suspect any gain, otherwise that expert could easily "block" his unfamiliar partner with really good hand, but with pass as a LA. > > The only situation in which it could suggest a worse hand would be > > if the player was overagressive and his partner hurraoptimistic, > > always > > assuming maximum, but it is completely illogical and such > > partnership is > > certainly not "expert" and not dangerous, their usual score range > > will start > > with -500. > > I have no problem with Maciej's "simple logic", but it starts from > the premise that "we have to assume that his partner is aware of his > tendencies", which I reject. While such an assumption might be > "reasonable", it is obviously not generally "demonstrable", and it is > my understanding that that specific change in the law was introduced > (in 1997?) to preclude the adoption of Maciej's presumption. Not > only do we not "have to" assume that the partner of the hesitator is > aware of his tendencies, I believe we must not do so without some > corroborating evidence beyond the mere coincidence of a huddle > appearing to have been "correctly interpreted". But this discussion is not about LAs. The topic is about: is the expert able to gain anything on average by hesitating. Nigel fears that the answer is "yes". I'm struggling to convince him that the answer is "hell, no", that such strategy would be losing in the distance and rare benefits are simple "rub of the green situations" without any malicious motives hidden. There are many better ways of cheating than hesitating with awful hands, "finger-artists" may prosper for years undetected, but such partnership would be suspended probably after some months. As to your statement, of course we do not apply RoC. But we take into consideration the longevity and skill level of the partnership. In borderline cases one can let the result stand for pick-up partnership and rule against Meckwell. In clear cases, when the chosen action was counter-suggested, we do not adjust, we treat it as pure luck unless such coincidences become more frequent. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 14 14:48:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:48:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Does "normal" need to be clarified? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: LOGICAL ARGUMENT THAT THE LAW IS NOT CLEAR If I ask you for the normal height, or normal heights, or normal range of heights, you have to know heights of what to answer the question. Humans? Males? Mammals? Objects in the universe? Trucks? In general, to decide on normal, you have to know normal what? To apply L70D1, you have to determine normal plays given _____, and fill in the blank. I have suggested two possibilities: (1) normal play given situation so far, and (2) normal play given the claimer's apparent awareness of the hand. These are of course only two possibilities. No one has suggested any way to determine, from the laws, how to fill in that blank. Some tenuous argument may exist, but I think not make the law as clear as it could be. To make the law clear, the blank needs to be filled in. FILLING IN THE BLANK If there is any disagreement about how to fill in the blank, then the law is not clear. How did you fill in this blank? How do you? The ACBL provides a book, Duplicate Decisions, to help directors with the law. How do they fill in the blank? They do not. They do provide examples. From the examples, one can try to infer how to fill in the blank. In my teaching experience, students do not always extract the desired principle from examples and one should explicitly state the principle to be extracted from the examples. I will comment on the White book separately. I think it equates normal with all rational plays (using the 1997 lawbook.) It perhaps uses my Definition 1, even though it is my impression that almost all directors use something more like Definition 2. I do not have access to Grattan's work explaining the law. Does that book fill in the blank? DO DIFFERENCES IN DEFINITIONS PRODUCE DIFFERENCES IN RULINGS? That's my worry. There are a few AC decisions that seemed very bad, to me and to others. As noted, declarer led from xxxxxx towards AQJxxx, and when RHO showed out conceded a trump trick (playing in 7S). The AC reversed the decision. Bridge World said that this would have won the award for worst AC decision of the year. But using definition 1, it is a perfectly logical decision. (I think John Mayne was trying to say the same thing.) There is only one normal way to play this suit -- play the ace first. So maybe what happened was that the AC was talked into using Definition 1. By definition 2, if declarer believes it is Kx offside, then playing the queen first becomes rational, though probably careless or inferior. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 14 16:53:36 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 10:53:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] clarifying normal (WBFLC) Message-ID: The WBFLC, opined back in 2000 (from the White Book). Only the last sentence is relevant. "For the purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71 "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved." This is not intended as a change in the Law but a clarification. A decision as to whether a play is irrational should be made considering the class of player. For example, would a player of this level really not notice that the ace of trumps was still out?" This implies, to me, that a line of play based on the act of trumps already being played (when it had not been played) would not be considered normal. This of course is based on the 1997 principle that irrational plays are not normal. But anyway... If "normal" is defined in terms of the player's awareness of the hand, then the actual claim statement is relevant. Hence, for some claims, it would be rational to play in a way based on the ace of trumps already being played, even though the ace has not been played. Therefore, this claim suggests that "irrational", and hence "normal", is defined in terms of the play so far. This is tenuous, I admit. I am just saying that people reading this might come to the conclusion that normal is defined by the play of the cards so far, not awareness of the claimer, as a way to accomodate the last sentence. Essentially, this is an implied definition by example. Bob From jfusselman at gmail.com Sat Feb 14 19:43:57 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:43:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902141043s49e1f8fei1fd7428fd851d957@mail.gmail.com> How do you pronounce Kooijman? From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 14 20:17:36 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:17:36 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <200902132226.n1DMQNsx003080@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200902132226.n1DMQNsx003080@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <499718D0.4000404@nhcc.net> > From: "Bystry" > If A passes with hesitation, and he is Nigel's nightmare expert, he has > something close to a2-a3 (standard expectation!). B should bid with b4 and > better, but he can't, only with b5-b6 (closer to a6) there is no LA. No, in this situation, B should bid with b5 or better, which is exactly what he's required by law to do. Without the hesitation, b4 would bid, but with it, he's safely passing. Whether we should worry about this is very much a matter of opinion, but there's no doubt the problem exists in principle. From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Feb 14 20:59:50 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:59:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <200902132237.n1DMbNqc004223@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200902132237.n1DMbNqc004223@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <499722B6.3040102@nhcc.net> > From: Adam Wildavsky > http://www.acbl.org/play/casebooks/Boston2008.html > > 1. East's reason for hesitating is profoundly irrelevant. Except that it may speak to the length of hesitation, which may be important in determining what the hesitation suggests. A couple of seconds in a confusing auction doesn't suggest much of anything, for example. Here, though, we have 8-10 s, which definitely suggests doubt. > The TD's ruling looks right, but I'm surprised he didn't take a poll. > Without poll results to back up the TD's judgment I don't agree that > the case was slim ? I see merit to the appeal. I personally can't imagine passing on East's hand: void in opponents' suit and another 5-c suit unbid after partner's takeout double. Maybe the LAs depend on what you think the second double shows. I think it shows extra values and nothing about shape, but if other people think it shows poor shape for the original double, then pass might just barely become a LA. However, based on the information given, I'd be inclined to let the table result stand. > 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this > trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows > that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that > if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it I like to be lenient on claims, but I tend to think I'd go the other way here. Claimers should state a line of play whenever there's the slightest doubt, especially about trumps. > 6. South was due a procedural penalty for her violation of correct > procedure. Also L73B1. > Yes, our rules for alerting and announcing are too > complicated, and not everyone knows that bids above 3NT are neither > alertable nor announceable after the first round of the auction. That > said, "I'm taking it as" should not be part of anyone's bidding > vocabulary. This appeal had no merit, and the initial and inexplicable > TD ruling does not grant it any. I'm wondering whether the players polled were really peers: those who would have bid 5D over 4NT. I'm also wondering whether they were asked the right question when polled. I'd expect 5D to be an attempt to reach a 4-4 fit while accepting the slam invitation. Having bid it, it makes no sense to pass 5H. Did anyone find out what responses to BW this pair was playing? If 1430, then North's story could have been concocted, and I sympathize with the AC's desire to give them the worst of it, but I'm still not sure that's the right decision. If 3014, North could not have meant 5D as a BW response, and passing 5H would be ridiculous. > 8. It would be nice to know how long North hesitated. Since the TD > judged there was a BIT I presume North waited longer than the ten > seconds required after West's skip bid. Also would be nice to know whether 2C promised 4c heart support and whether the players polled were given that information. (It probably didn't because the 4D bid would make no sense if 4c heart support was known to exist.) > I see no merit to the appeal. I can't imagine how NS thought they > might prevail, given the results of the poll. Were they told about the poll before going ahead? If so, why no AWMW? > 9. How many players were polled? Enquiring minds want to know! That > said, I agree that the appeal lacked merit. > > The Ruling section of the write-up is slightly confused. North's > hesitation is not relevant since South bid only 5S. All that matters > is that South's hesitation demonstrably suggested bidding on. If North passes as required, the contract will be 5S, not 5H. That probably makes the same number of tricks, but in a different situation the different contract might matter. From bobpark at consolidated.net Sun Feb 15 01:10:32 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:10:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net><002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net> <002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> Bystry wrote: > > > And you will remain despairing, because expert hesitation-and-pass could not > suggest pass, it still shows *more* than pass without UI (excluding my point > a) from an earlier email). Unless you will understand this simple logic, I > won't be able to convince you. Your example wasn't showing anything like > that, hesitation-and-pass suggested bidding (I'm not using actual hands, > only the idea), that's why in your point 1) the player decided to bid and > achieved a good game. If he passed, his partner would be barred and they > would lose. And the second one is exactly "rub of the green". > > I advise you to stop, throw away your perceived experiences and concentrate > only on pure logic. Players - A and B. Value of hands a1,a2 (normal pass), > a3, a4 (between pass and bid), a5, a6 (bid), the same for B - b(1-6). > Statistically it is beneficial for AB to go higher if their hands are at > least (a4;b3) or (a3;b4) or (a5;b2) or (a2;b5). Optimism, agressiveness, > state of match, level of opponents etc may change this border, but it is not > important, both of them know where does this border lie. Standard > expectation is a2-a3, b2-b3 (it may look strange that I gave only one > category a;b1 under the normal pass, but I assume situations in which there > is knowledge from an earlier auction that the hands are not awful, most > hesitations appear in competitive bidding, if anybody wants, he may give > more categories and then a;b2 or below may be standard expectation). > > If A passes without any hesitation, B will bid with b4 (close decision) and > better assuming average agressivness. > > If A passes with hesitation, he normally has something close to a3-a4, so B > should bid with b3-b4, but now he can't, only with a5-a6 (closer to a6) > there is no LA. > > If A passes with hesitation, and he is Nigel's nightmare expert, he has > something close to a2-a3 (standard expectation!). B should bid with b4 and > better, but he can't, only with b5-b6 (closer to a6) there is no LA. > > > > Maciej > > > > Your logic seems to fail in some cases. Consider, for example: 1M-2M-(pause) any game try. Here there is no useful information from opener's 2nd-round hesitation, as responder can't tell whether opener's indecision was between passing and inviting or between inviting and bidding game. Also, my partners have learned that there is no useful information when I pause before replying to a keycard ask (especially true if it was a kickback or minorwood bid). As a result of several erroneous replies, I have learned to count my steps (slowly) at least 3 times to make sure I am giving the correct reply. Carefully thought out bids in a serious 3NT auction would seem to deserve the same consideration. Does anyone have other examples where partner need not be shot after you hesitate? --Bob Park From john at asimere.com Sun Feb 15 02:23:11 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:23:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? References: <2b1e598b0902141043s49e1f8fei1fd7428fd851d957@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Koy as in Roy; M'n (man but short) . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Fusselman" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:43 PM Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? > How do you pronounce Kooijman? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Feb 15 02:41:37 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:41:37 -0600 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> References: <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net> <001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net> <000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net> <002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net> <002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl> <49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902141741k2380c43l45f601bfb746712d@mail.gmail.com> Robert Park wrote: > > Does anyone have other examples where partner need not be shot after you > hesitate? > Stayman, puppet Stayman, transfers, and ace-asking bids. I would also include artificial raises, slam tries, forcing NT, and jumps to slam without asking aces or controls. Most asking bids seem relatively noninformative and risk free. Before making these kinds of artificial calls, I recommend planning the auction, because your rebid is usually tempo sensitive. If you make this habit, then the time spent on your artificial bid is virtually information-free. Another example can be the card you play to the first trick on defense, provided you make that a habit. Jerry Fusselman From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 15 16:41:25 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 10:41:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <694eadd40902131025s2d0b6ccchd01ef0a8101272bd@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902131025s2d0b6ccchd01ef0a8101272bd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B02A11CEFE34AE7B7B653C5AA4BCF30@erdos> Adam Wildavsky writes: > Here are my draft comments on the NABC+ cases from Boston: > > 1. The poll results and the AC's judgment surprised me so I took my > own poll. The questions and results are available here: > > http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pZJesnDzgUg6coOKRy-_eZA > > 16 players chose to Pass, 5 bid 2S, and 16 bid 2NT. Most, no matter > what call they chose, seriously considered at least one other. My poll > results should make it clear that both Pass and 2S are Logical > Alternatives. This poll is an indication that the AC should not have seriously considered an AWMW against the NOS. An AWMW is designed to deter an appeal when the appelants should know they have no case. Imposing one, or even threatening to impose one, against a clearly non-offending side in a case like this deters appeals with merit which should be filed in order to prevent the offenders from profiting. > 5. I like the AC's approach -- I think they improved on the TD's ruling. > > I'm delighted to see that everyone understood that EW were entitled to > know the actual NS agreement, even though North had forgotten it. And this case shows the proper use of a split decision. East is entitled to know the NS agreement, but as an expert, he is also expected to work out that North forgot the agreement because the bidding and play are inconsistent with South having a penalty double. Therefore, East's inferior play was self-inflicted damage. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sun Feb 15 17:11:42 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ cases In-Reply-To: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: "Adam Wildavsky" writes: >3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this >trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows >that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that >if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have appeals books. We now have an established standard for what to do about careless claims. >4. The poll of only two players was too small to determine that Pass >was not a logical alternative. That said, pass was certainly not >logical ? this appeal had no merit. Where's the AWMW on this one? Passing after Blackwood when partner has shown that your side has all five key cards is not an LA, and players with over 3000 masterpoints should know that. >5. This was a bizarre case. EW committed the only infraction, >unnecessary delay of game. They then appeared to want to profit >thereby, winning a trick they could not have obtained legitimately. >This appeal had no merit. If I could find a way to penalize EW I >would. E-W appealed, so they could at least be given an AWMW. West appealed based on a claim that North would knowingly discard a card that cannot possibly win the last trick over one which will necessarily win the last trick. >7. The rulings look right but the write-up is missing a couple >important points. First, what did the BIT suggest? The score can be >adjusted only if it suggested bidding, though I agree that it did. I agree, but only because the South hand would pull a penalty double (with no defensive tricks and a heart void). The AC needs to make this determination, and describe it in the write-up. >9. How many players were polled? Enquiring minds want to know! That >said, I agree that the appeal lacked merit. >The Ruling section of the write-up is slightly confused. North's >hesitation is not relevant since South bid only 5S. All that matters >is that South's hesitation demonstrably suggested bidding on. In fact, the ruling is incorrect, since North's hesitation does not suggest 5S over pass by South. (I don't think it suggests anything at all, and in any case, North should have longer spades than hearts and South can give a preference.) The proper adjustment should be to 5S, not 5H. 5S played by North makes the same 12 tricks, so the adjusted score is correct and there is still no merit to the appeal. From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Feb 15 17:11:43 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:11:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <200902132226.n1DMQNsx003080@cfa.harvard.edu> <499718D0.4000404@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <003501c98f88$18426b20$15844c59@chello.pl> > > From: "Bystry" > > If A passes with hesitation, and he is Nigel's nightmare expert, he has > > something close to a2-a3 (standard expectation!). B should bid with b4 and > > better, but he can't, only with b5-b6 (closer to a6) there is no LA. > > No, in this situation, B should bid with b5 or better, which is exactly > what he's required by law to do. Without the hesitation, b4 would bid, > but with it, he's safely passing. I was correct. b4 means that B is torn between pass and bid, so every additional values over a2 are enough. Hesitation shows some additional values, unless A is deliberately cheating. a2-a3 is more or less the same hand that B would statistically assume (from the point of view of pure theory it should be a2, but I know from my experience that most bridge players are mild optimists). Regards Maciej From darkbystry at wp.pl Sun Feb 15 17:18:13 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:18:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net><002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net><002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl> <49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <003b01c98f89$002cd740$15844c59@chello.pl> > Your logic seems to fail in some cases. Consider, for example: > 1M-2M-(pause) any game try. Here there is no useful information from > opener's 2nd-round hesitation, as responder can't tell whether opener's > indecision was between passing and inviting or between inviting and > bidding game. My logic applies only to specific situations in which hesitating means "more". I just wanted to convince Nigel that such hesitations are not beneficial on average unless experts are really cheating. I'm fully aware of the situations in which hesitating suggests pass (for example balancing after 1NT in some cases) or doesn't suggest anything (as with 1NT-2NT or similar). It simply has nothing in common with my reasoning. > --Bob Park From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Feb 15 19:03:37 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:03:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Discussing appeals cases Message-ID: <59B6C641-7A01-4A6B-8409-49CF39B2B446@starpower.net> Some of the folks posting comments on the NABC+ appeals are stacking remarks on up to nine separate cases into single posts, making following the discussion of individual cases nearly impossible. I strongly urge all of us to limit posts to a single topic, and to put each appeal under discussion into its own thread. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Sun Feb 15 19:17:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:17:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break In-Reply-To: <49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net><002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net> <002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl> <49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <408B3B28-BFBF-425F-A9C2-5237164A11B9@starpower.net> On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:10 PM, Robert Park wrote: > Does anyone have other examples where partner need not be shot > after you > hesitate? High-level passes that are forcing by agreement. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Feb 15 21:02:16 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 15:02:16 -0500 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break Message-ID: <499874C8.9050108@nhcc.net> >> Does anyone have other examples where partner need not be shot >> after you hesitate? From: Eric Landau > High-level passes that are forcing by agreement. Forcing passes are the classic example: partner can't know whether you were close to doubling or bidding on. No reason the pass has to be high-level or forcing "by agreement" as long as its forcing nature is clear (and both bid and double are possible alternatives). From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 15 21:54:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 07:54:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Horses for courses (was Technical) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4995F043.90307@aol.com> Message-ID: >>"While specific questions may elicit the actual facts that the >>questioner wishes to know, there is a danger that they may lead >>to incomplete answers. For example, if a 3C overcall is Ghestem, >>showing a hand with two specified suits, and if an opponent >>merely says "Weak or strong?" it is not unreasonable for a player >>to answer "Weak", since this is true (and since more complete >>answers have been known to elicit comments such as "I did not ask >>that.")." (EBU Orange Book, clause 3B9, first paragraph) Jeff Easterson: >This may be simplistic but I suggest (as I did with claims and I >didn't seem to find universal acceptance there) that proper >procedure be followed. That is: do not ask "is that Ghestem?" or >"is that weak?" but ask what the bid means. Richard Hills: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 3C (1) Q A (1) Alerted East-West are playing in the Spring Foursomes for the first time. At their local club all players use natural 3C jump overcalls, with the traditionalists using strong jumps and the radicals using weak jumps. East therefore obviously asks, "Weak or strong"? North-South play the Ghestem convention, which East-West have never heard of, but South in accordance with EBU Orange Book clause 3B9 (first paragraph) over-succinctly answers, "Weak". Jeff Easterson: >And, as response, do not simply say "Ghestem" or "stayman" but >describe the bid. What suits, the length, the strength, etc. >Naturally, depending on how well you know the opponents you might >use concise forms (if you are sure they understand you). JE Richard Hills: Precisely. After any enquiry about a call or defensive play, even if the enquiry is not in the ideally proper form of "Please explain?", the answer should give full information. Which is why the arguably unLawful EBU Orange Book clause 3B9 (first paragraph) should be repealed. So "second and fourth" leads is incorrect; the correct explanation would be, "bottom from all doubletons, second from all three card suits (even those containing an honour), fourth from all four card or longer suits (even those not containing an honour)". 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 Sun Feb 15 22:19:41 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:19:41 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: P.O. Sundelin asked: >>For my question I change (back) to >> >>Ax, AKQ, Qxx, AQJTx >> >>xxx, xxx, Kxx, K98x >> >>West has KQJ, xxx, AJT, xxxx, and leads a heart. >>Would all you TDs bother to look at the East-West hands >>when declarer claims nine tricks? >> >>Declarer cashes the nine claimed tricks and exits with a spade. >>There is no way declarer can escape a diamond trick (except >>by ducking from both hands). Note how carefully I gave West >>unblockable spades... There is no way that East can get in. >> >>So the question repeated if you lost track during the stage >>setting: Will/should a TD force the tenth trick upon the nine- >>trick claimer? Sven Pran erred: >The short answer is NO. Richard Hills refutes: The short answer is YES. Law 70A: "...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides..." See also Law 69B2, Law 70E1, Law 71(2) and Law 79A2. Note that Law 68D permits dummy to doubt declarer's concession of four tricks and therefore immediately summon the Director. 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 Sun Feb 15 22:39:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:39:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <91C953CD-01F4-4781-A199-4E9A13A1E5E3@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau asserted: ...Thus the TD need not bother to look at the E-W hands unless prompted to do so by a player... Richard Hills quibbles: The Director always has the power to look at all four hands without prompting from a player, and of course should do so if the location of an unplayed card(s) is relevant to the claim and/or concession. Law 70B3: "The Director may require players to put their remaining cards face up on the table." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 15 23:54:08 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2009 23:54:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000801c98fc0$4fa05450$eee0fcf0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > P.O. Sundelin asked: > > >>For my question I change (back) to > >> > >>Ax, AKQ, Qxx, AQJTx > >> > >>xxx, xxx, Kxx, K98x > >> > >>West has KQJ, xxx, AJT, xxxx, and leads a heart. > >>Would all you TDs bother to look at the East-West hands > >>when declarer claims nine tricks? > >> > >>Declarer cashes the nine claimed tricks and exits with a spade. > >>There is no way declarer can escape a diamond trick (except > >>by ducking from both hands). Note how carefully I gave West > >>unblockable spades... There is no way that East can get in. > >> > >>So the question repeated if you lost track during the stage > >>setting: Will/should a TD force the tenth trick upon the nine- > >>trick claimer? > > Sven Pran erred: No, i didn't err: The Director will normally just establish whether the claim is good. In this case he has no need to look at opponents' cards to see that claimer has the nine tricks he claimed. > > >The short answer is NO. > > Richard Hills refutes: > > The short answer is YES. > > Law 70A: > > "...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably > as possible to both sides..." Sure, but that doesn't include investigating if claimer has claimed too few tricks! > > See also Law 69B2, Law 70E1, Law 71(2) and Law 79A2. You have snipped the parts of my message where I introduced these laws so I shall not comment again. > > Note that Law 68D permits dummy to doubt declarer's concession of > four tricks and therefore immediately summon the Director. Sure he may. And Declarer may do so himself within the correction period. But don't blame the Director for not investigating the possibility that the claimer has done something stupid in claiming. The Director will rule on the claim: Is it OK or is it not OK? If it is not OK then how many tricks shall be given to each side? Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 16 00:54:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:54:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000801c98fc0$4fa05450$eee0fcf0$@no> Message-ID: Pocket Oxford Dictionary: equitable, a. (-bly) valid in equity as opposed to law. equity, n. Fairness; use of principles of justice to supplement law, system of law so developed. Law 70A: "...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides..." Sven Pran erred: >Sure, but that doesn't include investigating if claimer has >claimed too few tricks! Richard Hills refutes: Equity to both sides necessarily includes equity to the claiming side. Sven Pran erred: >But don't blame the Director for not investigating the >possibility that the claimer has done something stupid in >claiming. Law 84D, first two sentences: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity." Law 85A1, final phrase: "...in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect." Richard Hills refutes: Note that Law 85A1 does _not_ say "he does collect". Ergo, if the Director carelessly (or wilfully, due erring in interpretation of the Lawful word "equitably") fails to collect evidence and thus carelessly (or wilfully) fails to retrieve the evidence needed to restore equity, then the Director has perpetrated a Director's error. Sven Pran erred: >No, i didn't err: Edmund Clerihew (1875-1956): George the Third Ought never to have occurred. One can only wonder At so grotesque a blunder. 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 Feb 16 04:38:21 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:38:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000801c98fc0$4fa05450$eee0fcf0$@no> Message-ID: <200902160338.n1G3cLbL010673@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 10:54 AM 16/02/2009, you wrote: >Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > >equitable, a. (-bly) valid in equity as opposed to law. > >equity, n. Fairness; use of principles of justice to supplement >law, system of law so developed. > >Law 70A: > >"...the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably >as possible to both sides..." > >Sven Pran erred: > > >Sure, but that doesn't include investigating if claimer has > >claimed too few tricks! > >Richard Hills refutes: > >Equity to both sides necessarily includes equity to the claiming >side. > >Sven Pran erred: > > >But don't blame the Director for not investigating the > >possibility that the claimer has done something stupid in > >claiming. The scenario is as follows: The claimer and both defenders have accepted 9 tricks. Dummy on the other hand starts enquiring if partner had the K (or Q) of diamonds, in which case he should have asked for 10. Declarer does a recount and now wants 10 via the TD and his partner's urging. Both defenders have returned their cards to the board, and have started the next. I suppose this is the equity we have heard so much about. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 16 05:46:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:46:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200902160338.n1G3cLbL010673@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove scenario: >The scenario is as follows: >The claimer and both defenders have accepted 9 tricks. Dummy >on the other hand starts enquiring if partner had the K (or Q) >of diamonds, in which case he should have asked for 10. Declarer >does a recount and now wants 10 via the TD and his partner's >urging. Both defenders have returned their cards to the board, >and have started the next. I suppose this is the equity we >have heard so much about. Richard Hills notes: It seems to me that, with dummy using her Law 68D rights and declarer now producing a timely (within the Law 79C limit) retraction of a concession, then Law 71(2) obviously applies. Law 71(2): A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal* play of the remaining cards. The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved. Richard Hills scenario: A trickier scenario would be, at matchpoint pairs: (a) Declarer claims 9 tricks in 3NT, (b) Dummy does not object to declarer's claim, (c) Defenders greedily (and foolishly) object, wanting to score a highly optimistic 5 defensive tricks, and (d) The Director, in assessing the dispute, notices that on all normal* lines of play declarer scores 10 tricks. Note that normal* in this scenario includes a very large number of lines of play, since a declarer who claims 9 tricks when 10 are cold is in a very strange "class of player". This is not quite the scenario posed by P.O. Sundelin (and answered by Sven Pran), since in this new scenario the Director _already_ has evidence that 10 tricks are cold on any normal* line of play. What ruling would Sven Pran make? What other rulings would Sven Pran consider making? 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 Feb 16 06:39:11 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:39:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200902160338.n1G3cLbL010673@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <200902160539.n1G5dC6l027660@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 03:46 PM 16/02/2009, you wrote: >Tony Musgrove scenario: > > >The scenario is as follows: > >The claimer and both defenders have accepted 9 tricks. Dummy > >on the other hand starts enquiring if partner had the K (or Q) > >of diamonds, in which case he should have asked for 10. Declarer > >does a recount and now wants 10 via the TD and his partner's > >urging. Both defenders have returned their cards to the board, > >and have started the next. I suppose this is the equity we > >have heard so much about. > >Richard Hills notes: > >It seems to me that, with dummy using her Law 68D rights and >declarer now producing a timely (within the Law 79C limit) >retraction of a concession, then Law 71(2) obviously applies. > >Law 71(2): > >A concession must stand, once made, except that within the >Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall >cancel a concession: >if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any >normal* play of the remaining cards. >The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. >* For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play >that would be careless or inferior for the class of player >involved. > >Richard Hills scenario: > >A trickier scenario would be, at matchpoint pairs: > >(a) Declarer claims 9 tricks in 3NT, >(b) Dummy does not object to declarer's claim, >(c) Defenders greedily (and foolishly) object, wanting to score > a highly optimistic 5 defensive tricks, and Tony interrupts: If declarer cannot quickly disabuse the defenders of their chances of gaining 5 tricks, and if they cannot see that in fact they are better off to allow the insufficient claim to stand, then all players are in a class of which I have never seen any. I stand ready to splash equity around in large lumps. Tony (Sydney) >(d) The Director, in assessing the dispute, notices that on all > normal* lines of play declarer scores 10 tricks. > >Note that normal* in this scenario includes a very large number >of lines of play, since a declarer who claims 9 tricks when 10 >are cold is in a very strange "class of player". > >This is not quite the scenario posed by P.O. Sundelin (and >answered by Sven Pran), since in this new scenario the Director >_already_ has evidence that 10 tricks are cold on any normal* >line of play. > >What ruling would Sven Pran make? >What other rulings would Sven Pran consider making? > > >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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 16 07:32:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:32:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Lurker at the Threshold [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills (22nd September 2005): A delurk by request. Best wishes Richard James Hills, amicus curiae Training and Staff Development Section 02 6264 2226 * * * William Schoder (September 2005): >>>>Grattan is completely right. He, as I have, responds >>>>to CTDs directly at times. It is always with the caveat >>>>that I'm speaking for myself and from my knowledge >>>>of the subject matter, but not for the WBFLC. Grattan Endicott (September 2005): >>>+=+ Unless, of course, quoting minuted decisions. +=+ WBF Laws Committee minutes, 24 August 1998, item 6: >>The Secretary remarked that past decisions and recorded >>intentions of the Committee represented the position of >>the Committee unless and until it changed them. Richard Hills (September 2005): >If past decisions and recorded intentions of the WBF LC >pre-1997 are still the position of the WBF LC, but not >even available on the WBF website, is not the availability >of official guidance so indirect as to be useless? > >I am reminded of a true story about an Australian government >organisation. Its original workplace agreement with staff >stated that "leave entitlements will be in accordance with >the Personnel Management Manual". The problem was that the >only copy of the Personnel Management Manual belonged to the >personnel manager. The Personnel Management Manual was >frequently inaccessible because the personnel manager was >frequently on leave. > >Of course, the personnel manager was well acquainted with >their _own_ leave entitlements. > >:-) Grattan Endicott (September 2005): "The law's made to take care o' raskills." ~ 'The Mill on the Floss' +=+ The question in my mind is whether the Delegates to past Congresses of the NBO members of the WBF have failed to take back to their organizations the minutes available at or subsequent to each Congress, and if so why? I do not believe ignorance of the law serves to excuse failure to conform to the law. All member NBOs have subscribed to the Constitution and ByLaws of the WBF which place upon the WBF the authority to decide what the law is and to interpret it. [snip] You may quote me if you wish. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills (16th February 2009): Some new positions taken by the 2007 Lawbook automatically rendered some old positions of WBF LC minutes obsolete (e.g. the now obsolete 1997 WBF LC minute about Law 92D). Also, some old positions of WBF LC minutes became superfluous when they were copied into the 2007 Lawbook (e.g. the 2007 Definition of "unintended" was formerly a WBF LC minute). But what is important is that the 24th August 1998 minute of the WBF LC specifically recognised "stare decisis" -- or precedent -- as a valid concept, with previously valid rules not to be overturned unless the official Laws or the official interpretations change (or unless the circumstances are different, so the valid rule is not relevant). While my 2005 point about the non-availability of some precedents was then ad rem, this will soon be moot once Ton Kooijman has completed his Appendix to the Laws, and it has been endorsed by the WBF LC. Perhaps this year??? * * * As in September 2005 and at some other times, I will now be lurking for a while (this time I intend a short lurk of a week or so, to restore my bonhomie). A Parthian shot for the blmler who (sincerely but obtusely) believes that the Drafting Committee included "play ceases" in Law 68D merely to benefit fellow Secretary Birds by over- complicating the claim Laws unnecessarily -> Eric Abrahamson and David H. Freedman, A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder, page 165: "Being too neat with business documents can even present a public menace. When the brakes on all twenty of Amtrak's high-speed Acela trains in the Northeast were found to contain cracks that could have led to a crash, forcing a three-month sidelining of the trains, the problem was eventually traced to an effort to declutter a maintenance manual. The original manual had pointed out the need to inspect the brakes for signs of impending cracks, but Amtrak wanted to put a more concise version in the hands of its maintenance people. Among the snippets cut for the neater, shorter version was the brake inspection warning." 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 Mon Feb 16 09:54:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:54:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] The Lurker at the Threshold [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003501c99015$20913530$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 6:32 AM Subject: [blml] The Lurker at the Threshold [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > While my 2005 point about the non-availability of some > precedents was then ad rem, this will soon be moot once Ton > Kooijman has completed his Appendix to the Laws, and it has > been endorsed by the WBF LC. Perhaps this year??? > +=+ I believe the question of endorsement will arise in Sao Paulo but I cannot predict whether the Committee will be of the mind (or indeed Ton himself would wish) that it should become a WBFLC document. If so, I would hope for some minor tidying of expression - e.g. with regard to 7C - and also that the judgemental views in relation to 86D should perhaps remain personal to Ton. If anyone wishes to draw attention to a statement in it that they suggest might be re-appraised they should tell us of their concern. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 10:09:50 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:09:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Discussing appeals cases In-Reply-To: <59B6C641-7A01-4A6B-8409-49CF39B2B446@starpower.net> References: <59B6C641-7A01-4A6B-8409-49CF39B2B446@starpower.net> Message-ID: On 15/02/2009, Eric Landau wrote: > Some of the folks posting comments on the NABC+ appeals are stacking > remarks on up to nine separate cases into single posts, making > following the discussion of individual cases nearly impossible. I > strongly urge all of us to limit posts to a single topic, and to put > each appeal under discussion into its own thread. I strongly agree. Appeal cases are normally the most interesting discussions here on BLML. But stacked together, I don't care to try to follow the threads at all. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 16 10:14:24 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:14:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200902160539.n1G5dC6l027660@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <200902160338.n1G3cLbL010673@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <200902160539.n1G5dC6l027660@mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <49992E70.6020705@talktalk.net> [Tony Musgrove] If declarer cannot quickly disabuse the defenders of their chances of gaining 5 tricks, and if they cannot see that in fact they are better off to allow the insufficient claim to stand, then all players are in a class of which I have never seen any.I stand ready to splash equity around in large lumps. [Nigel] Excellent metaphor, Tony. The law-book could define the unit of "equity" as the *commode* . [On-line etymological dictionary] L. commodus "suitable," from com- intens. prefix + modus "measure, manner." From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 16 10:46:20 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:46:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0902141043s49e1f8fei1fd7428fd851d957@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <499935EC.4040903@ulb.ac.be> John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > Koy as in Roy; M'n (man but short) > . > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:43 PM > Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? > > > >> How do you pronounce Kooijman? >> AG : I'd say the 'oo' should be longer than in 'Roy', and more closed in RP (not in current spoken Dutch). From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Mon Feb 16 10:51:48 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:51:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? Koy as in Roy; M'n (man but short) ton: ooij as in Roy: yes The 'a' in 'man' almost as the 'a' in 'part'; or as in the German 'Mann' Are you looking for my vulnerable sides? ton From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 16 11:20:25 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:20:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] more claiming questions [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <200902160338.n1G3cLbL010673@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <000401c99020$2ede65d0$8c9b3170$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Richard Hills notes: > > It seems to me that, with dummy using her Law 68D rights and > declarer now producing a timely (within the Law 79C limit) > retraction of a concession, then Law 71(2) obviously applies. > > Law 71(2): > > A concession must stand, once made, except that within the > Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall > cancel a concession: > if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any > normal* play of the remaining cards. > The board is rescored with such trick awarded to his side. > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play > that would be careless or inferior for the class of player > involved. > > Richard Hills scenario: > > A trickier scenario would be, at matchpoint pairs: > > (a) Declarer claims 9 tricks in 3NT, > (b) Dummy does not object to declarer's claim, > (c) Defenders greedily (and foolishly) object, wanting to score > a highly optimistic 5 defensive tricks, and > (d) The Director, in assessing the dispute, notices that on all > normal* lines of play declarer scores 10 tricks. > > Note that normal* in this scenario includes a very large number > of lines of play, since a declarer who claims 9 tricks when 10 > are cold is in a very strange "class of player". > > This is not quite the scenario posed by P.O. Sundelin (and > answered by Sven Pran), since in this new scenario the Director > _already_ has evidence that 10 tricks are cold on any normal* > line of play. > > What ruling would Sven Pran make? If you had taken the trouble to read my first comment properly you would have realized without asking further questions that in this situation I would have ruled 10 tricks. The reason is that defenders objection would cause me to analyze the possibility of them being able to hold declarer to 8 tricks and then find that they could not even hold declarer to 9. The Director must do the investigation necessary to rule on the posed claim and objection, but he is not required, or even supposed to investigate further once he has sufficient information to rule that a claim is good. Isn't "equity" to the claiming side served by accepting the claim when no further investigation is needed? I don't see any purpose of more comments to this thread. Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 16 12:25:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:25:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003001c98769$9d190bf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003001c98769$9d190bf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49994D32.2060200@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Nothing is often a good thing to say, > and always a clever thing to say". > ~ Will Durant., 1958. > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2009 3:16 AM > Subject: [blml] Kaplan's Klaim Konundrums [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> * * * >> >> I suggest that Ton Kooijman's forthcoming Appendix to the >> Laws should also contain similar indicative examples about >> the resolution of disputed claims. >> > +=+ Ton's Commentary - a work still in progress - has come forth > and may be accessed among the laws documents on the WBF web > site. It's current status is that of personal opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This document is unreadable by me - even after multiple passes through the adobe website. Could someone provide an easier readable form. Surely the document cannot contain such difficulties a simpler version of Adobe (I have version 7) cannot reproduce it. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 16 12:41:23 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:41:23 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus Message-ID: <499950E3.7090800@skynet.be> I finally did manage to get to read the commentary. I have a comment on his section on Average Plus: ton: An artificial adjusted score on a board in a pairs event should be awarded only if a pair at the start of a session was scheduled to play that board, but for some reason could not obtain a normal result. A bye in a session should not result in an average-plus score; the pairs concerned play one or more boards less. Our advice is to restrict by regulation the number of boards on which an average plus score is given, for example, to two boards in a session. If there are more boards without a result obtained by normal play those boards are not scored. I would like to propose to alter the words "at the start of a session" to "before the round starts". That way the situation is included where a contestant leaves the session (for whatever reason) leaving its opponents with a "bye" later on. Herman. From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 16 14:26:15 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:26:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break References: <49903A61.5050503@talktalk.net><002401c98b51$e9b47760$15844c59@chello.pl> <499195EE.6020509@talktalk.net><000d01c98bc3$90cff080$15844c59@chello.pl> <49924B89.5090805@talktalk.net><004c01c98d0a$7b561c00$15844c59@chello.pl> <499433D2.7040506@talktalk.net><001101c98d38$2b1a5200$15844c59@chello.pl> <49946F61.2030403@talktalk.net><000701c98d4b$ed3e0c60$15844c59@chello.pl> <499499C0.40105@talktalk.net><002c01c98dd9$b7f55ca0$15844c59@chello.pl> <4995BFBD.8010605@talktalk.net><002f01c98e28$88bd1960$15844c59@chello.pl><49975D78.2080703@consolidated.net> <408B3B28-BFBF-425F-A9C2-5237164A11B9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <358EAC5ECD97435690B1A51BDA652AD4@JOHN> when the coronary has already killed you? John though after the short pause it's customary to complete the hand standing up. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2009 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Tempo-break > On Feb 14, 2009, at 7:10 PM, Robert Park wrote: > >> Does anyone have other examples where partner need not be shot >> after you >> hesitate? > > High-level passes that are forcing by agreement. > > > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 16 14:32:02 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:32:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? References: <2b1e598b0902141043s49e1f8fei1fd7428fd851d957@mail.gmail.com> <499935EC.4040903@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <62670716018244C38A1B3C641F9EDBBC@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 9:46 AM Subject: Re: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? John (MadDog) Probst a ?crit : > Koy as in Roy; M'n (man but short) > . > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 6:43 PM > Subject: [blml] How do you pronounce Kooijman? > > > >> How do you pronounce Kooijman? >> AG : I'd say the 'oo' should be longer than in 'Roy', and more closed in RP (not in current spoken Dutch). yeah, the american pronounciation of bouy is too long however. (the english say boy as in roy.) I spent years wondering what a boo-ee was :) _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 16 14:37:40 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:37:40 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus References: <499950E3.7090800@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2FC2558071A84B4F8857E0A6BA738349@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:41 AM Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus >I finally did manage to get to read the commentary. > > I have a comment on his section on Average Plus: > > ton: > An artificial adjusted score on a board in a pairs event should be > awarded only if a pair at the start of a session was scheduled to play > that board, but for some reason could not obtain a normal result. A bye > in a session should not result in an average-plus score; the pairs > concerned play one or more boards less. Our advice is to restrict by > regulation the number of boards on which an average plus score is > given, for example, to two boards in a session. If there are more boards > without a result obtained by normal play those boards are not scored. > > I would like to propose to alter the words "at the start of a session" > to "before the round starts". > That way the situation is included where a contestant leaves the session > (for whatever reason) leaving its opponents with a "bye" later on. > Hmm, the English practice is to award A+. They were scheduled to play it and through no fault of their own ... I don't see any problem with the regulation, though I find it problematic that some boards are more equal than others. ie, all A+ or all "unplayed" who cares which? but not a mixture. > Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 16 15:19:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:19:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus In-Reply-To: <2FC2558071A84B4F8857E0A6BA738349@JOHN> References: <499950E3.7090800@skynet.be> <2FC2558071A84B4F8857E0A6BA738349@JOHN> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 08:37:40 -0500, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 11:41 AM > Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus > > >> I finally did manage to get to read the commentary. >> >> I have a comment on his section on Average Plus: >> >> ton: >> An artificial adjusted score on a board in a pairs event should be >> awarded only if a pair at the start of a session was scheduled to play >> that board, but for some reason could not obtain a normal result. A bye >> in a session should not result in an average-plus score; the pairs >> concerned play one or more boards less. Our advice is to restrict by >> regulation the number of boards on which an average plus score is >> given, for example, to two boards in a session. If there are more boards >> without a result obtained by normal play those boards are not scored. >> >> I would like to propose to alter the words "at the start of a session" >> to "before the round starts". >> That way the situation is included where a contestant leaves the session >> (for whatever reason) leaving its opponents with a "bye" later on. >> > > Hmm, the English practice is to award A+. They were scheduled to play it > and > through no fault of their own ... I don't see any problem with the > regulation, though I find it problematic that some boards are more equal > than others. ie, all A+ or all "unplayed" who cares which? but not a > mixture. I am somewhat sensitive to the word 'normal'. In "but for some reason could not obtain a normal score." There are too many ways to establish normal. The sentence works better with "normal" removed. We also give an A+ to players who can't play because their opponents left early. And the opponents get an A-. No play is probably more equitable...but that isn't the custom. I think the A- is important. You do not want to give everyone an A+ on the last round if the last round is cancelled because of fire (or whatever). That wouldn't be fair to a pair sitting out the last round, nor to competing sections in other locations. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 16 16:55:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:55:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: > "Adam Wildavsky" writes: > >> 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this >> trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows >> that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that >> if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it > > The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have > appeals > books. We now have an established standard for what to do about careless > claims. I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. Start with the logic. The key section of the law is deciding "if it was at all likely that claimer at the time of this caim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand." The committee argued that there must be a situation where this condition does not hold. Therefore, filling in the logic, if there is one, this must be it (because this is the best example of when this condition would not hold?) It is true that this condition is not always satisfied. A very good example is claiming on opening lead. Declarer presumably knows there are trump out. That's the best example. This example isn't even close. So the question is if this is another situation in which is it not at all likely that declarer has forgotten about the outstanding trump. If we had interrupted play before the claim and asked the probability that this player knew a trump was out, the probability would have been low. But the claim changes that probability. Players in ACBL-land know, as Adam notes, that they should not claim when a trump is outstanding. Therefore, given this claim (an issue for me), it was reasonably likely that declarer was not aware of the outstanding trump. Okay, let's go the other way. There must be some situation in which a player who claims is "at all likely to be unaware" of the outstanding trump. If we accept this committee's decision, such situations are relatively rare -- only when declarer has misplayed the hand suggesting unawareness of the outstanding trump. And then the law would read differently -- it was say "if evidence from the play of the hand suggests that declarer is unaware of the outstanding trump". And finally, consider practicality. Right now, it is pretty easy to figure out what happens following a claim when there is an outstanding trump. It becomes ten times harder if the director has to examine the preceding play to look for positive evidence that declarer has forgotten about that trump. So, this panel decision doesn't follow an obvious and well-known practice, and would be disasterous as a precedent. (Could the director reject this decision? The only issue seems to be how to interpret the laws.) Bob From swillner at nhcc.net Mon Feb 16 20:37:54 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:37:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) Message-ID: <4999C092.2010003@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > A very good > example is claiming on opening lead. Declarer presumably knows there are > trump out. That's the best example. This example isn't even close. I agree with Robert here. Another example would be when a declarer with 8 trumps including AKQJ draws one round, sees both players follow, and claims. It's beyond belief he thought no more trumps were out. Even then, "drawing the rest" wouldn't take long to say. > Players in ACBL-land know, as Adam > notes, that they should not claim when a trump is outstanding. I don't think Adam wrote that, and it's not how I've been taught. It's fine to claim with trumps out, but you have to say something about how you plan to play. > (Could the director reject this decision? The only issue seems to be how > to interpret the laws.) No, the ruling is a normal bridge judgment issue: whether being unaware of the trump is "at all likely" or not. From jjlbridge at free.fr Mon Feb 16 22:27:44 2009 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:27:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> 2009/2/16 Robert Frick : > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500, David Grabiner > wrote: > >> "Adam Wildavsky" writes: >> >>> 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this >>> trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows >>> that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that >>> if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it >> >> The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have >> appeals >> books. We now have an established standard for what to do about careless >> claims. > > I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. I still haven't completely recovered from the shock of reading this appeal case, let alone the mere suggestion that the panel decision wasn't obvious. Of course we may have some slightly different standards in France, but as E, against any half-decent opponent I would have spread my hand, and although I would probably say "ruffing high", I could skip it, and would very rarely think it remotely useful to mention drawing the last trump. Then, I would politely smile at S attempt to be funny asking for another trick, then be utterly bewildered that it is not a poor joke. And if the director had ruled as he did, assuming I could manage to keep cold-blooded (which I am ashamed to admit is rather unlikely), there would not have been any kind of appeal, since I would have immediately left the room, not dreaming to play another hand under such a ludicrous supervision. On the other hand, a PP against NS because of a breach of L74something for untolerable lawyering seems much more in order (I could be talked into a mere warning, though)... Jean-Jacques. -- From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 17 00:00:27 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:00:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Discussing appeals cases In-Reply-To: References: <59B6C641-7A01-4A6B-8409-49CF39B2B446@starpower.net> Message-ID: <694eadd40902161500t3613251w3a3a86745561eec8@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 4:09 AM, Harald Skj?ran wrote: > > On 15/02/2009, Eric Landau wrote: > > Some of the folks posting comments on the NABC+ appeals are stacking > > remarks on up to nine separate cases into single posts, making > > following the discussion of individual cases nearly impossible. I > > strongly urge all of us to limit posts to a single topic, and to put > > each appeal under discussion into its own thread. > > I strongly agree. > Appeal cases are normally the most interesting discussions here on BLML. > But stacked together, I don't care to try to follow the threads at all. I agree. I had hoped when I posted my comments that those who replied would start new threads, but that was perhaps asking too much. Shall I post each comment in a new thread next time? I haven't done that in the past partly because some cases generate no discussion and partly because there used to be many more cases. If the trend towards fewer appeals continues, and I hope it does, then posting comments on each case separately becomes more practical. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 17 03:08:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:08:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <69A07A8D-11BA-4EEA-BFD1-16067C43EE6F@starpower.net> Message-ID: Harold Wilson (1916-1995), falsely accused of being a statesman: "A week is a long time in politics." Richard Hills (16th February 2009): >>lurking for a while (this time I intend a short lurk of a >>week or so, to restore my bonhomie). Richard Hills (17th February 2009): A week is a short time in blml. My bonhomie restored, I wish to explore a fundamental question; "Should the Laws of any game contain rules which cannot be externally enforced?" Eric Landau: [big snip] >IOW, if I know you so well that I can figure out what your >problem is where others couldn't, I also know you so well that I >can figure out that you had a problem where others couldn't. We >call that "telepathy"; we don't allow it, but we recognize that >we can't detect its existence. Directors and committees don't >worry about it because they know that virtually all the genuinely >worrisome instances do not come to their attention. > >The only way to prevent well-wired partnerships from gaining an >extra-legal advantage over others is to prohibit long-standing >regular partnerships, and the only way to detect it afterwards is >to keep complete dossiers on all of our players. Richard Hills: Not the only way. A while back Konrad Ciborowski noted that his effectiveness in achieving good results went into a nose-dive once screens became more common for the major events he played in. And even screens are not the only way. Konrad alleged that all long-standing partnerships not playing behind screens must benefit from telepathy, and Eric alleges we can't detect its existence. But both are wrong. It is, of course, the long-standing partner who detects the telepathy, and the policy of the Ali-Hills partnership is then to take the non-suggested logical alternative. Of course, since "to err is Truman" we do not always succeed in our attempts to obey Law 73C - Player Receives Unauthorized Information from Partner When a player has available to him unauthorized information from his partner, such as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, undue emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, an unexpected* alert or failure to alert, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information. * i.e. unexpected in relation to the basis of his action. Richard Hills: The questions every player must ask herself are: (a) Do I want to win at any cost, ignoring Laws which cannot be externally enforced? (The Scottish Play strategy) or (b) Do I want to obey the Laws at any cost, with winning a mere secondary objective? (The Masochism Tango strategy) or (c) Do I want a self-deluding compromise by idiosyncratically interpreting the Laws, gaining a score advantage over those who correctly* apply the Laws? (The ______ __ ____ strategy) * Which I self-deludingly refuse to believe. 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 Feb 17 03:59:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:59:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Law 70B2: "Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim ***(but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the opponents' objections)***." Plato asserted: >The Director must do the investigation necessary to rule on the >posed claim and objection, but he is not required, Socrates asks: What Law says not? Plato asserted: >nor even supposed to investigate further Socrates asks: What Law says not? Plato asserted: >once he has sufficient information to rule that a claim is good. Socrates asks: Is an always inaccurate concession necessarily a good concession? Plato asserted: >Isn't "equity" to the claiming side served by accepting the >claim Socrates asks: What Law says so? Indeed, does not Law 79A2 imply that equity to the conceding side is otherwise? Law 79A2: "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his opponents could not lose." Plato asserted: >when no further investigation is needed? Socrates asks: Why not needed? Is that a circular argument, petitio principii? Plato asserted: >I don't see any purpose of more comments to this thread. Socrates asks: Is asking "What is equity?" a purposeless question? Best wishes Richard Hills, The Firelit Cave with Shadows on its Walls -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 17 05:27:27 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:27:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: <7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> <7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:27:44 -0500, Jean-Jacques wrote: > 2009/2/16 Robert Frick : >> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500, David Grabiner >> wrote: >> >>> "Adam Wildavsky" writes: >>> >>>> 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this >>>> trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows >>>> that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that >>>> if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it >>> >>> The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have >>> appeals >>> books. We now have an established standard for what to do about >>> careless >>> claims. >> >> I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. > > I still haven't completely recovered from the shock of reading this > appeal case, let alone the mere suggestion that the panel decision > wasn't obvious. > Of course we may have some slightly different standards in France, but > as E, against any half-decent opponent I would have spread > my hand, and although I would probably say "ruffing high", I could > skip it, and would very rarely think it remotely useful to mention > drawing the last trump. Then, I would politely smile at S attempt to > be funny asking for another trick, then be utterly bewildered that it > is not a poor joke. And if the director had ruled as he did, assuming > I could manage to keep cold-blooded (which I am ashamed to admit is > rather unlikely), there would not have been any kind of appeal, since > I would have immediately left the room, not dreaming to play another > hand under such a ludicrous supervision. On the other hand, a PP > against NS because of a breach of L74something for untolerable > lawyering seems much more in order (I could be talked into a mere > warning, though)... > > Jean-Jacques. Right. They interlock. In France, if you claim with this hand and don't mention that you know of outstanding trump, they accept your claim. (So you say.) That means you don't have to mention outstanding trump. Than means your claim is not good evidence that you don't know about the missing trump. That means directors in France are justified in accepting your claim. Here (and the standards my be looser at a National, but still), no one claims with an outstanding trump with saying something like ruffing high and drawing trumps. That's because directors won't accept it. Never? Almost never? So when this player claimed, there is actually good evidence that he did forget about the trump. Or he was just being careless, but would have been careless in ruffing small too. So directors are right to think there is some likelihood that he didn't forget about the missing trump. I am not sure you are following the laws in France. You would have to demonstrate that you sometimes give a trick to an outstanding small trump that declarer may likely have forgotten about. Can you give an example of when this would occur? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 17 05:41:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 15:41:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] Boston case law? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: David Grabiner: >The panel's ruling is an important case law, Richard Hills: No. David Grabiner: >and this is why we have appeals books. Richard Hills: No. David Grabiner: >We now have an established standard Richard Hills: No. David Grabiner: >for what to do about careless claims. Richard Hills: No. Careless claims should primarily be ruled in accordance with the Lawbook, secondarily in accordance with guidance from the WBF Laws Committee, and tertiarily in accordance with guidance from the ACBL Laws Commission (if one is an ACBL TD). Appeals Committees and Appeals Panels lack any power to set any guidelines. And guidelines which Bobby Wolff attempts to promulgate in ACBL appeals books are downright misleading. 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 Feb 17 06:20:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:20:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme (was Tempo-break) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499874C8.9050108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Robert Park: >>>Does anyone have other examples where partner need not be shot >>>after you hesitate? Eric Landau: >>High-level passes that are forcing by agreement. Steve Willner: >Forcing passes are the classic example: partner can't know >whether you were close to doubling or bidding on. No reason the >pass has to be high-level or forcing "by agreement" as long as >its forcing nature is clear (and both bid and double are possible >alternatives). Richard Hills: Polite insult of the day: "pull the other one, it's got bells on!" The enthymeme that Eric and Steve are leaving unstated in their arguments is: (a) unprompted partners never forget a forcing pass agreement, while Steve goes further in asserting: (b) unprompted partners always recognise a clear forcing pass even when not a partnership agreement. However, it is much easier to remember that a particular pass is supposed to be a forcing pass if partner paaaaasses slooooowly. A case in point is a debacle which happened to the erstwhile partnership of David Berkowitz and Larry Cohen. One of their very special understandings was that if: (w) the opponents bid to 7NT, and (x) the defender with the ace was not on lead, then (y) the off-lead defender would double with the ace of spades, but (z) the off-lead defender would pass with a different ace. In theory, this was a great gimmick. 7NT would fail 100% of the time when the off-lead defender held the spade ace, and 33%+ of the time with a different ace, better than the 25%+ success rate for those playing vanilla methods. Came the great day when Larry Cohen could use the 7NT gimmick. Holding a non-spade ace he passed in tempo. But because Larry Cohen ethically refused to paaaaass slooooowly, David Berkowitz forgot the gimmick, and led a 0% spade, allowing 7NT to make. In retrospect the vanilla method of doubling 7NT with any ace works better in practice, since a double would have awakened David Berkowitz from his afternoon nap. 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 Feb 17 07:38:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:38:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:59 AM Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Law 70B2: > > "Next, the Director hears the opponents' objections to the claim > ***(but the Director's considerations are not limited only to the > opponents' objections)***." > > Plato asserted: > >>The Director must do the investigation necessary to rule on the >>posed claim and objection, but he is not required, > > Socrates asks: > > What Law says not? > > Plato asserted: > >>nor even supposed to investigate further > > Socrates asks: > > What Law says not? > > Plato asserted: > >>once he has sufficient information to rule that a claim is good. > > Socrates asks: > > Is an always inaccurate concession necessarily a good concession? > > Plato asserted: > >>Isn't "equity" to the claiming side served by accepting the >>claim > > Socrates asks: > > What Law says so? Indeed, does not Law 79A2 imply that equity to > the conceding side is otherwise? > > Law 79A2: > > "A player must not knowingly accept either the score for a trick > that his side did not win or the concession of a trick that his > opponents could not lose." > > Plato asserted: > >>when no further investigation is needed? > > Socrates asks: > > Why not needed? Is that a circular argument, petitio principii? > > Plato asserted: > >>I don't see any purpose of more comments to this thread. > > Socrates asks: > > Is asking "What is equity?" a purposeless question? > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, > The Firelit Cave with Shadows on its Walls > From darkbystry at wp.pl Tue Feb 17 08:47:43 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:47:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> <7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> > I still haven't completely recovered from the shock of reading this > appeal case, let alone the mere suggestion that the panel decision > wasn't obvious. > Of course we may have some slightly different standards in France, but > as E, against any half-decent opponent I would have spread > my hand, and although I would probably say "ruffing high", I could > skip it, and would very rarely think it remotely useful to mention > drawing the last trump. Then, I would politely smile at S attempt to > be funny asking for another trick, then be utterly bewildered that it > is not a poor joke. And if the director had ruled as he did, assuming > I could manage to keep cold-blooded (which I am ashamed to admit is > rather unlikely), there would not have been any kind of appeal, since > I would have immediately left the room, not dreaming to play another > hand under such a ludicrous supervision. On the other hand, a PP > against NS because of a breach of L74something for untolerable > lawyering seems much more in order (I could be talked into a mere > warning, though)... Sorry, it is nothing personal, but I strongly dislike this contribution. For me opinions presented here are at least as harmful to bridge as lawyering. 1) you write that it is remotely useful to mention drawing trumps. It seems that for you it is obvious that *everyone* who claims *always* remembers about remaining trumps. You disagree with my appraisal? Not everyone and not always? So tell me, how can the opponents know whether that one, specific claimer remembers or not? Do they have to possess mind-reading skills? 2) you try to make an impression that you never make silly mistakes, like forgetting about remaining small trump. Sorry, but I don't believe in it. I haven't met any bridge player, no matter how skillful, who never made any silly mistake. Even top experts sometimes forget about something important, have mind-locks, fail to be careful in watching opponents' played cards (and in result take club as a spade or something like that) etc. That's why it is so important to issue claim statements, especially when the period between first use of trumps and claim is long. 3) you threaten to leave the competition after TD's ruling giving a trick to your opponents. So in fact your are admitting that you have no respect for bridge laws and officials trying to rule according to them. Because the laws *oblige* you to issue claim statements, not leave it to your whim whether you want to be magnanimous and say something or not. Because the laws *order* the TD to make a judgement ruling, whether it is at all likely that you forgot about the remaining trump or not. TDs aren't clairvoyant, so they cannot read your mind, and they have no reason to believe that Jean-Jacques never forgets about trumps. 4) PP for NS? "Untolerable lawyering"? I'm sick of it. More than once I was called an "untolerable lawyer" because I called a TD after the opponents' revoke or COOT or something, even if that infraction wasn't harmful and even if I was out of competition at that stage. I was taught by clever people long ago that the bridge law is impersonal and no player should decide whether to force it or not (excluding some really special circumstances like playing against disabled, when some tolerance is understandable). The main reason is that in bridge your deeds may influence many other pairs' results. And failing to call a TD may cause your direct opponents to finish higher, thus indirectly hurt the other pairs. And where would such attitude end? Is it ok to accept your friend's claim after the opening lead in a very difficult contract, explaining that your friend is a decent player and would probably make it ("accidentally" you are out of competition and your friend is still fighting)? Is it ok to "overlook" his revoke? COOT? Use of UI? There is another reason - if you are gracious and "forgive" an infraction of a given pair, later they will encounter someone who won't be so nice. Then they will call him a "bridge-lawyer" and "unethical", thinking that your attitude should be automatically shared by the others. I have nothing against loose atmosphere in clubs or local tournaments, I'm very rarely calling a TD there too. But if the competition is serious, the laws have to be fully obeyed. And anyone who wants to see them obeyed shouldn't be called "unethical". 5) I agree with Bob that this ruling was bad. Not because I disagree with Panel's judgement, they were there, not me, and they had full right to make such decision. But their justification is absurd, as Bob explained in his email very well. > Jean-Jacques. Regards Maciej From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 17 10:12:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:12:07 +0000 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499A7F67.5090304@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] A week is a short time in blml. My bonhomie restored, I wish to explore a fundamental question; "Should the Laws of any game contain rules which cannot be externally enforced?" [nigel] It seems hard to avoid some Bridge laws can rarely be enforced properly. Until recently, they were concentrated in the "Proprieties" section. From roger-eymard at orange.fr Tue Feb 17 10:52:53 2009 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:52:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com><7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <609AC3CC804C4354816DF1419A25E701@magnifique> On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 5:27 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote : > On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:27:44 -0500, Jean-Jacques > wrote: > >> 2009/2/16 Robert Frick : >>> On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500, David Grabiner >>> wrote: >>> >>>> "Adam Wildavsky" writes: >>>> >>>>> 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this >>>>> trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows >>>>> that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that >>>>> if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it >>>> >>>> The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have >>>> appeals >>>> books. We now have an established standard for what to do about >>>> careless >>>> claims. >>> >>> I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. >> >> I still haven't completely recovered from the shock of reading this >> appeal case, let alone the mere suggestion that the panel decision >> wasn't obvious. >> Of course we may have some slightly different standards in France, but >> as E, against any half-decent opponent I would have spread >> my hand, and although I would probably say "ruffing high", I could >> skip it, and would very rarely think it remotely useful to mention >> drawing the last trump. Then, I would politely smile at S attempt to >> be funny asking for another trick, then be utterly bewildered that it >> is not a poor joke. And if the director had ruled as he did, assuming >> I could manage to keep cold-blooded (which I am ashamed to admit is >> rather unlikely), there would not have been any kind of appeal, since >> I would have immediately left the room, not dreaming to play another >> hand under such a ludicrous supervision. On the other hand, a PP >> against NS because of a breach of L74something for untolerable >> lawyering seems much more in order (I could be talked into a mere >> warning, though)... >> >> Jean-Jacques. > > Right. They interlock. In France, if you claim with this hand and don't > mention that you know of outstanding trump, they accept your claim. (So > you say.) That means you don't have to mention outstanding trump. Than > means your claim is not good evidence that you don't know about the > missing trump. That means directors in France are justified in accepting > your claim. > > Here (and the standards my be looser at a National, but still), no one > claims with an outstanding trump with saying something like ruffing high > and drawing trumps. That's because directors won't accept it. Never? > Almost never? So when this player claimed, there is actually good evidence > that he did forget about the trump. Or he was just being careless, but > would have been careless in ruffing small too. So directors are right to > think there is some likelihood that he didn't forget about the missing > trump. > > I am not sure you are following the laws in France. You would have to > demonstrate that you sometimes give a trick to an outstanding small trump > that declarer may likely have forgotten about. Can you give an example of > when this would occur? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > Please, avoid paralogism ! I don't know any french senior TD who would not have ruled against the claimer. I know some of them who would have issued a PP against him if words like "ludicrous supervision" or "intolerable lawyering" were used at the table (Law 74). Best regards Roger From roger-eymard at orange.fr Tue Feb 17 10:54:58 2009 From: roger-eymard at orange.fr (Roger Eymard) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 10:54:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com><7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> <003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: On Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:47 AM, "Bystry" wrote : >> I still haven't completely recovered from the shock of reading this >> appeal case, let alone the mere suggestion that the panel decision >> wasn't obvious. >> Of course we may have some slightly different standards in France, but >> as E, against any half-decent opponent I would have spread >> my hand, and although I would probably say "ruffing high", I could >> skip it, and would very rarely think it remotely useful to mention >> drawing the last trump. Then, I would politely smile at S attempt to >> be funny asking for another trick, then be utterly bewildered that it >> is not a poor joke. And if the director had ruled as he did, assuming >> I could manage to keep cold-blooded (which I am ashamed to admit is >> rather unlikely), there would not have been any kind of appeal, since >> I would have immediately left the room, not dreaming to play another >> hand under such a ludicrous supervision. On the other hand, a PP >> against NS because of a breach of L74something for untolerable >> lawyering seems much more in order (I could be talked into a mere >> warning, though)... > > Sorry, it is nothing personal, but I strongly dislike this contribution. > For > me opinions presented here are at least as harmful to bridge as lawyering. > > 1) you write that it is remotely useful to mention drawing trumps. It > seems > that for you it is obvious that *everyone* who claims *always* remembers > about remaining trumps. You disagree with my appraisal? Not everyone and > not > always? So tell me, how can the opponents know whether that one, specific > claimer remembers or not? Do they have to possess mind-reading skills? > > 2) you try to make an impression that you never make silly mistakes, like > forgetting about remaining small trump. Sorry, but I don't believe in it. > I > haven't met any bridge player, no matter how skillful, who never made any > silly mistake. Even top experts sometimes forget about something > important, > have mind-locks, fail to be careful in watching opponents' played cards > (and > in result take club as a spade or something like that) etc. That's why it > is > so important to issue claim statements, especially when the period between > first use of trumps and claim is long. > > 3) you threaten to leave the competition after TD's ruling giving a trick > to > your opponents. So in fact your are admitting that you have no respect for > bridge laws and officials trying to rule according to them. Because the > laws > *oblige* you to issue claim statements, not leave it to your whim whether > you want to be magnanimous and say something or not. Because the laws > *order* the TD to make a judgement ruling, whether it is at all likely > that > you forgot about the remaining trump or not. TDs aren't clairvoyant, so > they > cannot read your mind, and they have no reason to believe that > Jean-Jacques > never forgets about trumps. > > 4) PP for NS? "Untolerable lawyering"? I'm sick of it. More than once I > was > called an "untolerable lawyer" because I called a TD after the opponents' > revoke or COOT or something, even if that infraction wasn't harmful and > even > if I was out of competition at that stage. I was taught by clever people > long ago that the bridge law is impersonal and no player should decide > whether to force it or not (excluding some really special circumstances > like > playing against disabled, when some tolerance is understandable). > > The main reason is that in bridge your deeds may influence many other > pairs' > results. And failing to call a TD may cause your direct opponents to > finish > higher, thus indirectly hurt the other pairs. And where would such > attitude > end? Is it ok to accept your friend's claim after the opening lead in a > very > difficult contract, explaining that your friend is a decent player and > would > probably make it ("accidentally" you are out of competition and your > friend > is still fighting)? Is it ok to "overlook" his revoke? COOT? Use of UI? > > There is another reason - if you are gracious and "forgive" an infraction > of > a given pair, later they will encounter someone who won't be so nice. Then > they will call him a "bridge-lawyer" and "unethical", thinking that your > attitude should be automatically shared by the others. I have nothing > against loose atmosphere in clubs or local tournaments, I'm very rarely > calling a TD there too. But if the competition is serious, the laws have > to > be fully obeyed. And anyone who wants to see them obeyed shouldn't be > called > "unethical". > > 5) I agree with Bob that this ruling was bad. Not because I disagree with > Panel's judgement, they were there, not me, and they had full right to > make > such decision. But their justification is absurd, as Bob explained in his > email very well. > >> Jean-Jacques. > > Regards > > Maciej I fully agree. Best regards Roger From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 17 11:27:22 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:27:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499A7F67.5090304@talktalk.net> References: <499A7F67.5090304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <499A910A.7020705@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [richard.hills] > > A week is a short time in blml. My bonhomie restored, I wish to > explore a fundamental question; "Should the Laws of any game > contain rules which cannot be externally enforced?" > > [nigel] > > It seems hard to avoid some Bridge laws can rarely be enforced properly. Until recently, they were concentrated in the "Proprieties" section. > It has always been my biggest problem in TFLB that *many* laws can't be enforced. How do you know, upon the second revoke in the same suit, that the player didn't try to avoid masking his first revoke in the hope that declarer claims and it remains unnoticed ? How do you know that some LOOT wasn't made deliberately, in the hope of inducing a cover ? How do you know what the intent of a question was ? In particular, how do you ascertain that the player knew the answer ? One can never be 100% sure of the meaning of any opposing bid. BTW, it's a good idea to ask about all their bids in a row, so as not to transmit UI about which one worries you, and among the lot there might be some that you know about. How do you know that they didn't purposely accept the wrong opponents showing at their table, just to score 60% on at least one deal against a good pair ? Best regards Alain From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Tue Feb 17 11:49:31 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 11:49:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: <003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com><7e7228 820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> <003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <499A963B.4010909@meteo.fr> Bystry a ?crit : >> I still haven't completely recovered from the shock of reading this >> appeal case, let alone the mere suggestion that the panel decision >> wasn't obvious. >> Of course we may have some slightly different standards in France, but >> as E, against any half-decent opponent I would have spread >> my hand, and although I would probably say "ruffing high", I could >> skip it, and would very rarely think it remotely useful to mention >> drawing the last trump. Then, I would politely smile at S attempt to >> be funny asking for another trick, then be utterly bewildered that it >> is not a poor joke. And if the director had ruled as he did, assuming >> I could manage to keep cold-blooded (which I am ashamed to admit is >> rather unlikely), there would not have been any kind of appeal, since >> I would have immediately left the room, not dreaming to play another >> hand under such a ludicrous supervision. On the other hand, a PP >> against NS because of a breach of L74something for untolerable >> lawyering seems much more in order (I could be talked into a mere >> warning, though)... > > Sorry, it is nothing personal, but I strongly dislike this contribution. For > me opinions presented here are at least as harmful to bridge as lawyering. > > 1) you write that it is remotely useful to mention drawing trumps. It seems > that for you it is obvious that *everyone* who claims *always* remembers > about remaining trumps. You disagree with my appraisal? Not everyone and not > always? So tell me, how can the opponents know whether that one, specific > claimer remembers or not? Do they have to possess mind-reading skills? > > 2) you try to make an impression that you never make silly mistakes, like > forgetting about remaining small trump. Sorry, but I don't believe in it. I > haven't met any bridge player, no matter how skillful, who never made any > silly mistake. Even top experts sometimes forget about something important, > have mind-locks, fail to be careful in watching opponents' played cards (and > in result take club as a spade or something like that) etc. That's why it is > so important to issue claim statements, especially when the period between > first use of trumps and claim is long. > > 3) you threaten to leave the competition after TD's ruling giving a trick to > your opponents. So in fact your are admitting that you have no respect for > bridge laws and officials trying to rule according to them. Because the laws > *oblige* you to issue claim statements, not leave it to your whim whether > you want to be magnanimous and say something or not. Because the laws > *order* the TD to make a judgement ruling, whether it is at all likely that > you forgot about the remaining trump or not. TDs aren't clairvoyant, so they > cannot read your mind, and they have no reason to believe that Jean-Jacques > never forgets about trumps. > > 4) PP for NS? "Untolerable lawyering"? I'm sick of it. More than once I was > called an "untolerable lawyer" because I called a TD after the opponents' > revoke or COOT or something, even if that infraction wasn't harmful and even > if I was out of competition at that stage. I was taught by clever people > long ago that the bridge law is impersonal and no player should decide > whether to force it or not (excluding some really special circumstances like > playing against disabled, when some tolerance is understandable). > > The main reason is that in bridge your deeds may influence many other pairs' > results. And failing to call a TD may cause your direct opponents to finish > higher, thus indirectly hurt the other pairs. And where would such attitude > end? Is it ok to accept your friend's claim after the opening lead in a very > difficult contract, explaining that your friend is a decent player and would > probably make it ("accidentally" you are out of competition and your friend > is still fighting)? Is it ok to "overlook" his revoke? COOT? Use of UI? > > There is another reason - if you are gracious and "forgive" an infraction of > a given pair, later they will encounter someone who won't be so nice. Then > they will call him a "bridge-lawyer" and "unethical", thinking that your > attitude should be automatically shared by the others. I have nothing > against loose atmosphere in clubs or local tournaments, I'm very rarely > calling a TD there too. But if the competition is serious, the laws have to > be fully obeyed. And anyone who wants to see them obeyed shouldn't be called > "unethical". > > 5) I agree with Bob that this ruling was bad. Not because I disagree with > Panel's judgement, they were there, not me, and they had full right to make > such decision. But their justification is absurd, as Bob explained in his > email very well. i understand your reaction but you should be more tolerant. you should know that in france, and not only for bridge, laws are only intended for idiots who don't know from their own notion of ethics how to behave. bridge players are conceited, they would have written beyond good and evil, if only they were born before nietzche. the proper mean for claiming is to return one's hand to the wallet; adding a word or showing one's hand would be a sign of weakness and auto-exclusion from the class of real bridge players; asking the claimer for a clarification would be an offence. jpr > >> Jean-Jacques. > > 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 ehaa at starpower.net Tue Feb 17 15:48:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:48:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9848BF23-8D0F-468D-9D3D-B25428BFEDE9@starpower.net> On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500, David Grabiner > wrote: > >> "Adam Wildavsky" writes: >> >>> 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this >>> trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows >>> that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and >>> that >>> if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it >> >> The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have >> appeals >> books. We now have an established standard for what to do about >> careless >> claims. > > I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. > > Start with the logic. The key section of the law is deciding "if it > was at > all likely that claimer at the time of this caim was unaware that a > trump > remained in an opponent's hand." > > The committee argued that there must be a situation where this > condition > does not hold. Therefore, filling in the logic, if there is one, > this must > be it (because this is the best example of when this condition > would not > hold?) > > It is true that this condition is not always satisfied. A very good > example is claiming on opening lead. Declarer presumably knows > there are > trump out. That's the best example. This example isn't even close. > > So the question is if this is another situation in which is it not > at all > likely that declarer has forgotten about the outstanding trump. > > If we had interrupted play before the claim and asked the > probability that > this player knew a trump was out, the probability would have been > low. But > the claim changes that probability. Players in ACBL-land know, as Adam > notes, that they should not claim when a trump is outstanding. > Therefore, > given this claim (an issue for me), it was reasonably likely that > declarer > was not aware of the outstanding trump. > > Okay, let's go the other way. There must be some situation in which a > player who claims is "at all likely to be unaware" of the outstanding > trump. If we accept this committee's decision, such situations are > relatively rare -- only when declarer has misplayed the hand > suggesting > unawareness of the outstanding trump. > > And then the law would read differently -- it was say "if evidence > from > the play of the hand suggests that declarer is unaware of the > outstanding > trump". > > And finally, consider practicality. Right now, it is pretty easy to > figure > out what happens following a claim when there is an outstanding > trump. It > becomes ten times harder if the director has to examine the > preceding play > to look for positive evidence that declarer has forgotten about > that trump. > > So, this panel decision doesn't follow an obvious and well-known > practice, > and would be disasterous as a precedent. I'm with Bob on "egregiously bad". I start with the implicit premise that, in Adam's words, "a player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it". Examining the balance of the evidence as to whether the claimer *may have forgotten* (NB: not "forgot") about the outsanding trump: For: He made no mention of it whatsoever when he claimed. Despite the above. Against: He asserted without further explication that "it was so obvious it didn?t merit a mention". I find it hard to imagine a purer example of the sort of "self-serving statement" we are directed to discount. On the balance of the evidence, I would not accept that "it was so obvious". And ruffing small is clearly inferior, but not irrational, even if that last matters. It doesn't take 700 master points to know that mentioning the outstanding trump is likely to save a director call, a hassle and a ruling. Why wasn't that "so obvious" to East? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 17 22:30:01 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:30:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: "..... the marble eyelids are not wet If it could weep it could arise and go." ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) "When there are no tears in the eyes the pain is inside" (Child sitting in the rubble of her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) Ross Gittins (SMH economics editor) on an unspeakable truth, Sydney Morning Herald 18th February 2009: [big snip] Our emotion-driven caring is highly selective. People with problems get wonderful treatment provided their problems make good TV footage and for the 15 minutes they're in the media spotlight. People with chronic (old-hat), unphotogenic problems get ignored. Last week the pollies snapped into action when bushfire victims claimed Centrelink was being overly bureaucratic. In the Northern Territory, some Aborigines' quarantined incomes have been unavailable to them for days because of technical or bureaucratic bungles. Who cares? You may say that, whatever our motives and fickleness, at least the money we donate does some good. Yes - provided we don't give less to other charities to compensate. Some British evidence suggests we probably do. Law 84D, first two sentences: "The Director rules any doubtful point in favour of the non- offending side. He seeks to restore equity." Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." +=+ Would you not say that the function of the director is to verify the claim, not to play the hand for the claimer? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ A claim and/or concession is never an irregularity (unless one intentionally claims more tricks than one is entitled to). But the question to be resolved is whether conceding one trick too many is a Law 81C3 "error". If the answer to that question is Yes, then Grattan's use of the word "verify" begs the question, petitio principii. Perhaps more light can be shed on this "What is equity?" issue if we examine a similar hypothetical case first discussed on blml some years ago, when the 1997 Lawbook was in effect. * * * The scenario is that a bored Director arrives at a table without being summoned and observes the play to recherche du temps perdu. But what the Director observes is declarer perpetrating an established revoke, and the defenders failing to notice the established revoke. (Declarer may or may not have realised that she had perpetrated an established revoke, but Law 72B2 gives her the right to remain silent and the right to one phone call.) One suggestion at the time to resolve the problem was that the Director was wearing two hats, so the Director wearing the Spectator's hat need not tell the Director wearing the Director's hat about the established revoke. This cute idea was of doubtful legality under the old 1997 Law 76, but is definitely illegal under the new 2007 Law 76. Law 76D - Spectators - Status: "Any person in the playing area*, other than a player or a tournament official, has the status of a spectator unless the Director specifies differently. * The playing area includes all parts of the accommodation where a player may be present during a session in which he is participating. It may be further defined by regulation." Pseudo-pedants may attempt to argue that the "unless..." clause permits the Director to redefine herself as a Spectator. But those pseudo-pedants have perpetrated a grammatical error in parsing Law 76D, which merely permits the Director to reduce the number of spectators (e.g. by defining a non-playing captain as a non- spectator), not to increase the number. With the Law 76 loophole now definitely closed, how would you rule as Director? Would you rule that it is not the function of the Director to defend the hand for the defenders? 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 jjlbridge at free.fr Tue Feb 17 22:54:06 2009 From: jjlbridge at free.fr (Jean-Jacques) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:54:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: <003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> <7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com> <003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <7e7228820902171354q4beb1747u23d628f316489649@mail.gmail.com> case under discussion is : http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Boston2008/03-Non-NABC+.pdf 2009/2/17 Bystry : > 1) you write that it is remotely useful to mention drawing trumps. It seems > that for you it is obvious that *everyone* who claims *always* remembers > about remaining trumps. You disagree with my appraisal? Not everyone and not > always? So tell me, how can the opponents know whether that one, specific > claimer remembers or not? Do they have to possess mind-reading skills? No, I just say that anyone claiming *in this situation* always remember about an outstanding trump. As it happens bridge often is a game of mind-reading, since mind-reading is collecting various clues in order to "guess" correctly. Here the hand was over at trick 2 from declarer point of view : he just plays as he did, hoping that the defense will either let him slip past the SJ or fail to cash out (much less likely). When this doesn't happen the hand is over for everybody and he claims. > 2) you try to make an impression that you never make silly mistakes, like > forgetting about remaining small trump. Sorry, but I don't believe in it. I > haven't met any bridge player, no matter how skillful, who never made any > silly mistake. Even top experts sometimes forget about something important, > have mind-locks, fail to be careful in watching opponents' played cards (and > in result take club as a spade or something like that) etc. That's why it is > so important to issue claim statements, especially when the period between > first use of trumps and claim is long. Exactly, here the period between the first use of trump and the claim is nil if you consider the "mental claim", and the minimum for the actual claim : declarer played trump, and claimed as soon as he had the opportunity to continue (and finish) doing so. On the other hand, fooling around with side suits when there are outstanding trumps, then claiming (when the side suit splits for instance) is a very good indication that the trump has been forgotten. > 3) you threaten to leave the competition after TD's ruling giving a trick to > your opponents. So in fact your are admitting that you have no respect for > bridge laws and officials trying to rule according to them. Because the laws > *oblige* you to issue claim statements, not leave it to your whim whether > you want to be magnanimous and say something or not. Because the laws > *order* the TD to make a judgement ruling, whether it is at all likely that > you forgot about the remaining trump or not. TDs aren't clairvoyant, so they > cannot read your mind, and they have no reason to believe that Jean-Jacques > never forgets about trumps. This is indeed a judgement ruling that happens to be easy enough so that neither the opponents nor the TD should get it wrong, and therefore I have little respect for their competence. > 4) PP for NS? "Untolerable lawyering"? I'm sick of it. More than once I was > called an "untolerable lawyer" because I called a TD after the opponents' > revoke or COOT or something, even if that infraction wasn't harmful and even > if I was out of competition at that stage. I was taught by clever people > long ago that the bridge law is impersonal and no player should decide > whether to force it or not (excluding some really special circumstances like > playing against disabled, when some tolerance is understandable). > > The main reason is that in bridge your deeds may influence many other pairs' > results. And failing to call a TD may cause your direct opponents to finish > higher, thus indirectly hurt the other pairs. And where would such attitude > end? Is it ok to accept your friend's claim after the opening lead in a very > difficult contract, explaining that your friend is a decent player and would > probably make it ("accidentally" you are out of competition and your friend > is still fighting)? Is it ok to "overlook" his revoke? COOT? Use of UI? > > There is another reason - if you are gracious and "forgive" an infraction of > a given pair, later they will encounter someone who won't be so nice. Then > they will call him a "bridge-lawyer" and "unethical", thinking that your > attitude should be automatically shared by the others. I have nothing > against loose atmosphere in clubs or local tournaments, I'm very rarely > calling a TD there too. But if the competition is serious, the laws have to > be fully obeyed. And anyone who wants to see them obeyed shouldn't be called > "unethical". I am convinced that declarer was aware of the missing trump (at least I would be in France during a serious event, I played in ACBL three or four times, but it was 15 years ago and at club level), so that the minor infraction (a "should" is used in the law) has no consequence, and the opponent try to rob the field of a normal result to get a top instead. We are not talking about "waving a penalty" here, but asking for ruling *hoping that the TD will get it wrong* so that you will gain. At least this is exactly what I felt reading the case. > 5) I agree with Bob that this ruling was bad. Not because I disagree with > Panel's judgement, they were there, not me, and they had full right to make > such decision. But their justification is absurd, as Bob explained in his > email very well. I agree that the "therefore" in the writing is a bit like a "proof is left as an exercise to the reader", but then again, it is the way the hand was played that explains the "no doubt he was aware of the missing trump". On a more personal note, I would really like to encourage claiming as much as possible, for instance by dropping the "for the purpose of disconcerting an opponent" part of 74B4, or at least changing it to "if this disconcerts an opponent", I am so easily disconcerted :-) And if this means that one ruling out of ten in cases of careless claims goes in favor of the claimer when it probably shouldn't have, fine by me ! Jean-Jacques. -- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 17 23:59:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:59:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >...It becomes ten times harder if the director has to >examine the preceding play to look for positive evidence >that declarer has forgotten about that trump. George Bernard Shaw: "Life was not meant to be easy, but take courage my child it can be delightful." Law 70C2 criterion: "...at the time of his claim was unaware..." Richard Hills quibbles The best way to test whether the claimer was unaware is for the Director to examine the play to the preceding tricks. The Lawbook was designed to make life easy and equitable for players, not for Directors. Robert Frick asserted: >...no one claims with an outstanding trump with saying >something like ruffing high and drawing trumps. That's >because directors won't accept it. Never? Almost never? Richard Hills quibbles: Frequently. A classic example is North-South having a 100% cold 7NT. Alas, North-South foolishly play 7S in their 4-4 fit which is only 96% cold (failing whenever trumps break 5-0). After winning the side suit opening lead at trick one, declarer draws one round of trumps at trick two. Both defenders follow. Declarer then claims without a statement. The unmistakable inference is that declarer claimed as soon as she knew that 7S was certain to make. (As opposed to a blmler who chooses to claim whenever he has a gut feeling that it might possibly be valid.) If other Directors followed the De Frick School on Law 70C, they would ignore the play to tricks one and two, deem that declarer was under the misapprehension that the contract was 7NT, and rule one off when a defender ruffed in as declarer was cashing side winners. What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From JffEstrsn at aol.com Tue Feb 17 23:32:08 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:32:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary; help! Message-ID: <499B3AE8.1070505@aol.com> Allow me to first express my admiration for the job Ton has done. It has surely cost him a great deal of time and concentration. Yes, there are a few places where the English can be cleaned up a bit (Grattan?) but that is of no importance. I think that there are probably a few typos as well. But there are two passages that I don't understand. Since there have been no others questioning them I assume my obtuseness exceeds that of all other blmlers. Page 7 (Law 26): first three paragraphs. In the third paragraph Ton writes, "the legal 2 he. does show hearts." In the immediately preceding example to which he refers, didn't it also show hearts? The bid is accepted in this (the preceding) example in which it, as I understand Ton, showed hearts and diamonds. He writes (example) in third paragraph "the legal 2 heart does show heart. In that case the meaning is much different." Can someone clarify this for me? Why is "the meaning much different"? What am I missing here? Page 8 (Law 27B1): The insufficient bid showed 4 or more hearts and 6+points. It is replaced by double which..."in other partnership agreements, shows hearts and diamonds and then it is contained in the meaning of the (insufficient) 1 heart bid, just showing hearts." This seems strange to me: a bid showing hearts and diamonds is contained in the meaning of a bid showing only hearts? Am I again missing something here? From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 18 00:50:28 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:50:28 +0000 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499B4D44.6070905@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] If other Directors followed the De Frick School on Law 70C, they would ignore the play to tricks one and two, deem that declarer was under the misapprehension that the contract was 7NT, and rule one off when a defender ruffed in as declarer was cashing side winners. What's the problem? [Nigel] Richard's "What's the problem" always alerts us difficulies :) For the players, the problem is which director to call. Defenders will prefer De Frick but declarer's will go for Hills (or the local equivalent). A simple book ruling so no need for consultation :) Once again, if you know your men, whoever calls first wins :) From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 01:59:31 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:59:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > +=+ Would you not say that the function of the director is to > verify the claim, not to play the hand for the claimer? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > A claim and/or concession is never an irregularity (unless one > intentionally claims more tricks than one is entitled to). But > the question to be resolved is whether conceding one trick too > many is a Law 81C3 "error". If the answer to that question is > Yes, then Grattan's use of the word "verify" begs the question, > petitio principii. > > Perhaps more light can be shed on this "What is equity?" issue if > we examine a similar hypothetical case first discussed on blml > some years ago, when the 1997 Lawbook was in effect. > > * * * > > The scenario is that a bored Director arrives at a table without > being summoned and observes the play to recherche du temps perdu. > > But what the Director observes is declarer perpetrating an > established revoke, and the defenders failing to notice the > established revoke. (Declarer may or may not have realised that > she had perpetrated an established revoke, but Law 72B2 gives her > the right to remain silent and the right to one phone call.) .............. > Would you rule that it is not the function of the Director to > defend the hand for the defenders? Absolutely. The Director should not in any way interfere until after the time specified in Law 64B4 or Law 64B5, whichever comes first, has expired.. Thereafter the Director should use Law 64C: Equity for the offending side is the score they would have received had attention to the revoke been called in time. Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. The only exception from this is if there is some special reason for allowing the non-offending side redress for damage caused by the revoke in spite of not calling attention to the revoke in time. (An example of such reason could be a violation of Law 72B3.) Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 18 02:35:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:35:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499B4D44.6070905@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Law 70C2: "When a trump remains in one of the opponents? hands, the Director shall award a trick or tricks to the opponents if: it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent?s hand, and" ACBL appeals panel ruling, key paragraph: "When the solons created this law, they would have left out #2 had they wanted directors to always rule that an opponent gets a trick(s) if conditions 1 and 3 are met. Ergo #2 must have meaning. In general, if declarer has adopted a reasonable line of play and has attempted to draw trump at every opportunity unless there is a valid bridge reason for not doing so, he is allowed to accurately count trump." Richard Hills: In general this is an illegal ruling, since the Solons also created Law 93B1, which states that the Director in charge has the exclusive right and power to interpret Law 70C2, not the appeals committee. It is irrelevant that this particular appeals committee is drawn from a panel of directors; they are not exercising full directorial power when hearing an appeal, merely determining issues of fact and judgement. But if one sets aside the fact that the interpretation of Law 70C2 is ultra vires, is the interpretation a sensible one? Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission erred: "I agree with the panel's ruling." Richard Hills: The sound of the Fifth Symphony being played backwards is Beethoven decomposing in his grave. The rotating noise Adam hears is the sound of Edgar Kaplan rolling over in his grave. "Attempting to draw trumps at every opportunity" does _not_ have a one-to-one relationship with awareness of trump(s) being out. Edgar Kaplan emphasised the real-life importance of the _timing_ of the claim. If one has just cashed a round of spades in 7S to determine whether trumps are 5-0, then claimed when they are not, then Edgar would rule Law 70C2 is satisfied and the claim is upheld. If, however, declarer's last attempt to draw trumps was interrupted by the defence grabbing their trump ace and then cashing a large number of side winners, then only a hopeless water buffalo (Aussie slang) or funky gibbon (Brit slang) or Adam Wildavsky (Yankee slang) would agree with the Boston panel's ruling that declarer is not "at all likely" to have forgotten an unmentioned trump. 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 Wed Feb 18 02:44:51 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 01:44:51 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> Message-ID: <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> [Richard Hills] The scenario is that a bored Director arrives at a table without being summoned and observes the play to recherche du temps perdu. But what the Director observes is declarer perpetrating an established revoke, and the defenders failing to notice the established revoke. (Declarer may or may not have realised that she had perpetrated an established revoke, but Law 72B2 gives her the right to remain silent and the right to one phone call.) One suggestion at the time to resolve the problem was that the Director was wearing two hats, so the Director wearing the Spectator's hat need not tell the Director wearing the Director's hat about the established revoke. This cute idea was of doubtful legality under the old 1997 Law 76, but is definitely illegal under the new 2007 Law 76. With the Law 76 loophole now definitely closed, how would you rule as Director? Would you rule that it is not the function of the Director to defend the hand for the defenders? [Sven Pran] Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. [Nigel] After reading the law but before reading director comments, I would have been lulled into a false sense of security if a director watched my table. I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and approve damage done to me by a law-breaker. This illustrates why real-world analogies fail to illuminate the murky microcosm of bridge "equity". Imagine your feelings about a policeman who tries to avoid detecting crime; but if he observes a rape or mugging, patiently waits until it's over before doing anything; and then ignores the plight of the victim :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 18 04:10:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:10:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:59:59 -0500, wrote: > > > Robert Frick asserted: > >> ...It becomes ten times harder if the director has to >> examine the preceding play to look for positive evidence >> that declarer has forgotten about that trump. > > George Bernard Shaw: > > "Life was not meant to be easy, but take courage my child > it can be delightful." > > Law 70C2 criterion: > > "...at the time of his claim was unaware..." > > Richard Hills quibbles > > The best way to test whether the claimer was unaware is > for the Director to examine the play to the preceding > tricks. Well, the preceding play might show that declarer was unaware of an outstanding trump. Or it might be ambiguous -- declarer played the way he did because he was unaware of a trump outstanding, or for other reasons. You will have to wait until 2017 if you want to rewrite the law. It does not now say "2. There is positive evidence from the play of the hand that declarer has forgotten about the outstanding trump." In ACBL-land, everyone knows they should not claim when there are trump outstanding without mentioning or addressing the issue of trump. That is also evidence. > The Lawbook was designed to make life easy and > equitable for players, not for Directors. Are you trying to claim here that the authors did not care about the ease of making director rulings? I find that very difficult to believe. There is also an issue of the time to make a director ruling if it has to be done at the table. > > Robert Frick asserted: > >> ...no one claims with an outstanding trump with saying >> something like ruffing high and drawing trumps. That's >> because directors won't accept it. Never? Almost never? > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Frequently. A classic example is North-South having a > 100% cold 7NT. Alas, North-South foolishly play 7S in > their 4-4 fit which is only 96% cold (failing whenever > trumps break 5-0). > > After winning the side suit opening lead at trick one, > declarer draws one round of trumps at trick two. Both > defenders follow. Declarer then claims without a > statement. The unmistakable inference is that declarer > claimed as soon as she knew that 7S was certain to make. Right. We are on the same wavelength here. I have already given this as an example of when a claim would be accepted even though trump were out. This does not meet condition 2 of L70C, because there is little to no chance that declarer could think that the trump were drawn. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 18 04:17:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:17:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> Message-ID: The parable from Monty Python's Life of Brian: BRIAN: Ohh. Look. There was this man, and he had two servants. ARTHUR: What were they called? BRIAN: What? ARTHUR: What were their names? BRIAN: I don't know. And he gave them some talents. EDDIE: You don't know?! BRIAN: Well, it doesn't matter! ARTHUR: He doesn't know what they were called! BRIAN: Oh, they were called 'Simon' and 'Adrian'. Now-- ARTHUR: Oh! You said you didn't know! BRIAN: It really doesn't matter. The point is there were these two servants-- ARTHUR: He's making it up as he goes along. >>The scenario is that a bored Director arrives at a table without >>being summoned and observes the play to recherche du temps perdu. >> >>But what the Director observes is declarer perpetrating an >>established revoke, and the defenders failing to notice the >>established revoke. (Declarer may or may not have realised that >>she had perpetrated an established revoke, but Law 72B2 gives her >>the right to remain silent and the right to one phone call.) >>.............. >>Would you rule that it is not the function of the Director to >>defend the hand for the defenders? Sven Pran's pythonic parable: >Absolutely. > >The Director should not in any way interfere until after the time >specified in Law 64B4 or Law 64B5, whichever comes first, has >expired. > >Thereafter the Director should use Law 64C: Law 64C - Director Responsible for Equity: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." Sven Pran's pythonic parable: >Equity for the offending side is the score they would have received >had attention to the revoke been called in time. Socrates asks: Which time? The before Law 64B4/B5 time, or the before Law 79C time? If the offending side gets an adjustment consistent with _before_ the Law 64B4/B5 time, how is this Lawful when attention was drawn to the established revoke _after_ the Law 64B4/B5 time? Sven Pran's pythonic parable: >Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. [snip] Law 12B1 asks: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction. Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." Nigel Guthrie wouldn't expect: >>..... I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and >>approve damage done to me by a law-breaker ..... Imagine your >>feelings about a policeman who ..... ignores the plight of the >>victim :) Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers ***normally*** include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Socrates asks: What is normal? Best wishes Richard Hills, The Firelit Cave with Shadows on its Walls -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 18 04:38:45 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:38:45 +1100 Subject: [blml] The best of Richard bashing [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Law 81C3: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage. The Director's duties and powers ***normally*** include also the following: to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Socrates asks: What is normal? Richard Hills suggests: A ruling that would be careless or inferior for the class of Director involved? 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 Feb 18 04:46:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:46:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick incredulous: >Are you trying to claim here that the authors did not care about the >ease of making director rulings? I find that very difficult to believe. Ripley's Believe It Or Not -> Sentence in the International Preface to the Laws (deleted by the ACBL): "Over the years there has been a marked increase in the expertise and experience of Directors, which has been recognized in the new Code by the increased responsibilities given to them." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 18 04:54:34 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:54:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:44:51 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Richard Hills] > The scenario is that a bored Director arrives at a table without being > summoned and observes the play to recherche du temps perdu. But what the > Director observes is declarer perpetrating an established revoke, and > the defenders failing to notice the established revoke. (Declarer may > or may not have realised that she had perpetrated an established revoke, > but Law 72B2 gives her the right to remain silent and the right to one > phone call.) > One suggestion at the time to resolve the problem was that the Director > was wearing two hats, so the Director wearing the Spectator's hat need > not tell the Director wearing the Director's hat about the established > revoke. This cute idea was of doubtful legality under the old 1997 Law > 76, but is definitely illegal under the new 2007 Law 76. With the Law 76 > loophole now definitely closed, how would you rule as Director? Would > you rule that it is not the function of the Director to > defend the hand for the defenders? > > [Sven Pran] > Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. > > [Nigel] > After reading the law but before reading director comments, I would have > been lulled into a false sense of security if a director watched my > table. I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and approve > damage done to me by a law-breaker. This illustrates why real-world > analogies fail to illuminate the murky microcosm of bridge "equity". > Imagine your feelings about a policeman who tries to avoid detecting > crime; but if he observes a rape or mugging, patiently waits until it's > over before doing anything; and then ignores the plight of the victim :) If L81C3 was meant as a duty, it would probably read "any error" instead of "an error". Anyway, I interpret it as a power. So the law lets me correct any error or irregularity. It is still an interesting question of when I should intervene and when I shouldn't. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 18 05:32:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:32:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick: >If L81C3 was meant as a duty..... >Anyway, I interpret it as a power..... Richard Hills: If Law 81C3 was meant as a duty, its first sentence might assign a _responsibility_ to the Director, for example: "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." By gum, that _is_ the first sentence of Law 81C3. Even highly experienced Directors occasionally forget that the preamble to a Law is an integral part of each numbered clause of that Law, so sometimes Homer nods by posting to blml a hypothetical but totally ridiculous equity ruling. Homer, the Iliad: "As is the generation of leaves, so is that of humanity. The wind scatters the leaves on the ground, but the live timber burgeons with leaves again in the season of spring returning. So one generation of Directors will grow while another dies." Homer, the Simpson: "D'oh!" Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Wed Feb 18 05:38:56 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:38:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston case law? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40902172038vee7b91du81abcd1ebcd037a2@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM, wrote: > > David Grabiner: > > >The panel's ruling is an important case law, > > Richard Hills: > > No. Richard is correct. In the ACBL, neither AC decisions nor TD Panel decisions create precedents. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 18 06:40:20 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:40:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 23:32:55 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> If L81C3 was meant as a duty..... >> Anyway, I interpret it as a power..... > > Richard Hills: > > If Law 81C3 was meant as a duty, its first sentence might > assign a _responsibility_ to the Director, for example: > > "The Director (not the players) has the responsibility > for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage." > > By gum, that _is_ the first sentence of Law 81C3. Even > highly experienced Directors occasionally forget that the > preamble to a Law is an integral part of each numbered > clause of that Law, so sometimes Homer nods by posting to > blml a hypothetical but totally ridiculous equity ruling. I think that's pretty clearly a sentence about who is responsible for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage -- the director, not the players. If the author's ahd meant to say that all errors and irregularities had to be addressed, they would have said "The Dirctor has a responsibility to rectify all irregularities and errors." But L82A wins for you. I think that makes me (as director) responsible for correcting all errors and rectifying all irregularities. And for your other thread, I think L82A also makes me responsible for looking for any and all possible errors in procedure. It doesn't limit me to just the errors and irregularities I know about. So I am breaking L82A and not fulfilling my responsibilities to the law when I do not examine every claim to see if there is some unexpected placement of the defender's cards that allows claimer an extra trick on any normal play of the cards. Or, I am breaking Law 82A when I sit in my office rather than kibitz as many tables as possible, or when I do not mark down the deal for every board and check the boards after the game to make sure a board did not get fouled. Maybe I will change my mind, but I concede that for now. You win. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 18 07:19:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:19:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] EBU case law? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40902172038vee7b91du81abcd1ebcd037a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: David Grabiner: >>>The panel's ruling is an important case law, Richard Hills: >>No. Adam Wildavsky: >Richard is correct. In the ACBL, neither AC decisions nor >TD Panel decisions create precedents. Richard Hills: The legal position is slightly different for EBU Appeals Casebooks. Before publication of the casebooks, the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee examines some of the appeals cases and comments on the sense (or nonsense) of the appeals committees' reasonings. The EBU L&EC paragraphs are printed at the end of each case, and it is those (and only those) paragraphs which are binding precedents for EBU TDs. Law 21A - Call Based on Caller's Misunderstanding: "No rectification or redress is due to a player who acts on the basis of his own misunderstanding." EBU L&EC (National Authority) ruling in the 2007 Casebook: Appeal to National Authority: The Committee found that West's actions showed that she probably did not understand the ruling given by the TD. However they discussed whether this amounted to an error in tournament direction or was it just bad luck. The Committee found that had the TD read the law straight from the law book then any misunderstanding would have been entirely West's and there would have been no recourse. The Committee considered that there was some chance that the TD's wording had caused the misunderstanding. The Committee therefore ruled under [1997] Law 82C that this amounted to Director's error. If the Director has given a ruling that he or the Chief Director subsequently determines to be incorrect, and no rectification will allow the board to be scored normally, he shall award an adjusted score, considering both sides as non-offending for that purpose. The effect of this was to award one additional trick to West's side - the contract being scored as 2S=. The Committee refunded the original deposit of ?30. * * * Richard Hills: In a recent national championship a Very Senior Tournament Director was summoned to the table for a call out of turn ruling. The VSTD did not read the COOT Law straight from the Lawbook, so suffered the embarrassment of the COOTer's LHO correcting the VSTD's error by announcing that the VSTD had forgotten Law 29A: "Following a call out of rotation offender's LHO may elect to call thereby forfeiting the right to any rectification." The nonplussed VSTD asked the LHO if he was accepting the COOT. The LHO said, "No, I just want my right to accept it." Monty Python's Life of Brian: JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies. FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry. REG: What's the point? FRANCIS: What? REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?! FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression. REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality. Best wishes Richard Hills, unreal LHO -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 18 07:41:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:41:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2FC2558071A84B4F8857E0A6BA738349@JOHN> Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst: >Hmm, the English practice is to award A+. They were scheduled to >play it and through no fault of their own ... I don't see any >problem with the regulation, though I find it problematic that >some boards are more equal than others. ie, all A+ or all >"unplayed" who cares which? but not a mixture. Richard Hills: In my opinion, Ton's proposal to vary average plus is 50% unLawful. Law 86A gives the Regulating Authority unfettered power to change the default +3 imps at team play or similar, but there is no such power granted to Regulating Authorities to change the nature of the matchpoint pairs average plus. Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: "...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." This particular topic of multiple average pluses appeared in the ACBL Laws Commission minutes well _before_ the current Laws were finalised; the fact that no specific proposition a la Ton and the ACBL was inserted into the new 2007 Law 12 suggests that the ACBL representatives on the Drafting Committee had second thoughts about the unintended consequences of the ACBL LC/Ton idea. 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 gampas at aol.com Tue Feb 17 10:05:37 2009 From: gampas at aol.com (gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 04:05:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8CB5EF608570843-12FC-1698@WEBMAIL-DY12.sysops.aol.com> [Adam Wildasky] 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have? appeals books.? We now have an established standard for what to do about careless claims. [David Grabiner] ?I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. [paul lamford] I agree with the panel's ruling, and Adam expresses it very well. In every case the TD or AC just has to decide whether it was at all likely that the declarer was unaware of the missing trump. They decided in this case that it was not "at all likely". A simple value judgement, whether you agree with or not; so "egregiously bad" is wrong. Mr Burn would no doubt prefer a claim law where doubtful points in faulty claims?are resolved by the opponents selecting a legal card for the declarer at each stage. But this is not Law. A similar example with one trump outstanding would be a declarer in Seven Spades with S AK432 H A432 D?5 C KJ3 opposite S QJT65 H 5 D A432 C AQ2 on a club lead. He draws one round of trumps to which all follow. He now says "they are all mine, I can score three ruffs in dummy"; he omits to state that he will draw the second trump. There are two possibilities: a) Declarer mistakenly thought 5+5 equalled 11, and is unaware of the missing trump. East gets an overruff on the fourth round of diamonds with his eight of spades. One off. b) Declarer was aware that he had 10 trumps, and knew that he could claim precisely after finding they were 2-1. c) The Burn ruling that declarer draws five rounds of trumps before exiting carefully with the third round of clubs after cashing both red aces, or better still discarding both of them on the fourth round of clubs. Six off. That'll learn him! And if an opponent with T98 tripleton in clubs has to win the third club, then he will play five rounds of trumps followed by ace and another in the right red suit to get all the winners away. So still six off.? (a) is unlikely; but in each and every occasion on which such a case occurs, the TD just has to decide if it was "at all likely". That to me means a probability of perhaps 5%, but it is not easy to convert "some", "most", "several", "at all"?etc into percentages, which is why those words should be avoided in books of .... Laws. "At all possible" must be anything greater than 0%, but what is "at all likely"? ________________________________________________________________________ AOL Email goes Mobile! You can now read your AOL Emails whilst on the move. Sign up for a free AOL Email account with unlimited storage today. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090217/fbe05b56/attachment-0001.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 17 08:56:30 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:56:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499A6DAE.7070001@skynet.be> Henk, can we really accept posts like this? richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > (c) Do I want a self-deluding compromise by idiosyncratically > interpreting the Laws, gaining a score advantage over those > who correctly* apply the Laws? (The ______ __ ____ strategy) > > * Which I self-deludingly refuse to believe. > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 18 09:10:47 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:10:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499BC287.4000102@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Frequently. A classic example is North-South having a > 100% cold 7NT. Alas, North-South foolishly play 7S in > their 4-4 fit which is only 96% cold (failing whenever > trumps break 5-0). > > After winning the side suit opening lead at trick one, > declarer draws one round of trumps at trick two. Both > defenders follow. Declarer then claims without a > statement. The unmistakable inference is that declarer > claimed as soon as she knew that 7S was certain to make. > > (As opposed to a blmler who chooses to claim whenever > he has a gut feeling that it might possibly be valid.) > And what is the difference? What is the difference between a claimer playing one trump trick and saying "drawing the rest" and another one not playing a single one saying "drawing trumps, down if they are 5-0"? So what is the difference between the one claimer drawing one and claiming without saying and the other claiming without drawing one? The Director shall, in both cases, have to determine whether it is at all likely that claimer does not realize there are trumps out, and how many of them. Is there any indication that the second claimer knows less than the first one? And why is Richard bashing someone he does not name? > If other Directors followed the De Frick School on Law > 70C, they would ignore the play to tricks one and two, > deem that declarer was under the misapprehension that > the contract was 7NT, and rule one off when a defender > ruffed in as declarer was cashing side winners. > > What's the problem? > Yeah, apart from sentences that start with "as opposed to", what is the problem? Herman. > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 09:29:18 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:29:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary; help! In-Reply-To: <499B3AE8.1070505@aol.com> References: <499B3AE8.1070505@aol.com> Message-ID: 2009/2/17 Jeff Easterson : > Allow me to first express my admiration for the job Ton has done. It has > surely cost him a great deal of time and concentration. Yes, there are > a few places where the English can be cleaned up a bit (Grattan?) but > that is of no importance. I think that there are probably a few typos > as well. > > But there are two passages that I don't understand. Since there have > been no others questioning them I assume my obtuseness exceeds that of > all other blmlers. > > Page 7 (Law 26): first three paragraphs. In the third paragraph Ton > writes, "the legal 2 he. does show hearts." In the immediately preceding > example to which he refers, didn't it also show hearts? The bid is > accepted in this (the preceding) example in which it, as I understand > Ton, showed hearts and diamonds. > He writes (example) in third paragraph "the legal 2 heart does show > heart. In that case the meaning is much different." Can someone > clarify this for me? Why is "the meaning much different"? What am I > missing here? > > Page 8 (Law 27B1): The insufficient bid showed 4 or more hearts and > 6+points. It is replaced by double which..."in other partnership > agreements, shows hearts and diamonds and then it is contained in the > meaning of the (insufficient) 1 heart bid, just showing hearts." This > seems strange to me: a bid showing hearts and diamonds is contained in > the meaning of a bid showing only hearts? Am I again missing something here? A bid that shows hearts include all hands with a heart suit, also those with a diamond suit. Thus you can replace a bid showing hearts with a bid showing hearts and diamonds - the latter is indeed a subset of the first. But it's not the other way around: If the insufficient bid showed both hearts and diamonds, you can't replace it with a bid showing hearts, since the diamond suit is missing. Onesuited heart hands aren't a subset of hands with hearts and diamonds. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk at ripe.net Wed Feb 18 09:35:33 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:35:33 +0100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499A6DAE.7070001@skynet.be> References: <499A6DAE.7070001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <499BC855.7080708@ripe.net> Herman De Wael wrote: > Henk, can we really accept posts like this? This will be discussed offline with the poster. Henk > > richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> (c) Do I want a self-deluding compromise by idiosyncratically >> interpreting the Laws, gaining a score advantage over those >> who correctly* apply the Laws? (The ______ __ ____ strategy) >> >> * Which I self-deludingly refuse to believe. >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 18 09:26:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:26:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> <9848BF23-8D0F-468D-9D3D-B25428BFEDE9@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001a01c991a9$e434b5d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) On Feb 16, 2009, at 10:55 AM, Robert Frick wrote: On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 11:11:42 -0500, David Grabiner wrote: > "Adam Wildavsky" writes: > 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it >> The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have appeals books. We now have an established standard for what to do about careless claims. > I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. > Start with the logic. The key section of the law is deciding "if it was at all likely that claimer at the time of this claim was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand." < The committee argued that there must be a situation where this condition does not hold. Therefore, filling in the logic, if there is one, this must be it (because this is the best example of when this condition would not hold?) > It is true that this condition is not always satisfied. A very good example is claiming on opening lead. Declarer presumably knows there are trumps out. That's the best example. This example isn't even close. > So the question is if this is another situation in which is it not at all likely that declarer has forgotten about the outstanding trump. > If we had interrupted play before the claim and asked the probability that this player knew a trump was out, the probability would have been low. But the claim changes that probability. Players in ACBL-land know, as Adam notes, that they should not claim when a trump is outstanding. Therefore, given this claim (an issue for me), it was reasonably likely that declarer was not aware of the outstanding trump. Okay, let's go the other way. There must be some situation in which a player who claims is "at all likely to be unaware" of the outstanding trump. If we accept this committee's decision, such situations are relatively rare -- only when declarer has misplayed the hand suggesting unawareness of the outstanding trump. > And then the law would read differently -- it was say "if evidence from the play of the hand suggests that declarer is unaware of the outstanding trump". > And finally, consider practicality. Right now, it is pretty easy to figure out what happens following a claim when there is an outstanding trump. It becomes ten times harder if the director has to examine the preceding play to look for positive evidence that declarer has forgotten about that trump. > So, this panel decision doesn't follow an obvious and well-known practice, and would be disastrous as a precedent. > I'm with Bob on "egregiously bad". I start with the implicit premise that, in Adam's words, "a player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it". Examining the balance of the evidence as to whether the claimer *may have forgotten* (NB: not "forgot") about the outstanding trump: > For: He made no mention of it whatsoever when he claimed. Despite the above. > Against: He asserted without further explication that "it was so obvious it didn?t merit a mention". I find it hard to imagine a purer example of the sort of "self-serving statement" we are directed to discount. > On the balance of the evidence, I would not accept that "it was so obvious". And ruffing small is clearly inferior, but not irrational, even if that last matters. > It doesn't take 700 master points to know that mentioning the outstanding trump is likely to save a director call, a hassle and a ruling. Why wasn't that "so obvious" to East? Eric Landau > +=+ I do not know the case. However, prima facie when a claim is made without mentioning an outstanding trump the claimer is unaware of it. Normally it is for the claimer to produce evidence that he was unquestionably aware of the trump. The words '*at all* likely' are key and the evidence should be irrefutable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 18 10:18:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:18:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001b01c991a9$e4837210$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 9:30 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] +=+ Would you not say that the function of the director is to verify the claim, not to play the hand for the claimer? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > A claim and/or concession is never an irregularity (unless one intentionally claims more tricks than one is entitled to). But the question to be resolved is whether conceding one trick too many is a Law 81C3 "error". If the answer to that question is Yes, then Grattan's use of the word "verify" begs the question, petitio principii. > +=+ I am not sure where it is suggested that the laws require a claimer to claim all his available tricks. If a player claims some number of tricks and concedes the remainder, no illegal play being involved, and no player objects, what error is there that calls for rectification by the director? If the full number of available tricks is only achievable via a technical play beyond the capabilities of the claimer, are we to understand that the director is to award him that full number by way of rectification? Is it not the function of the director to verify that what the claimer is saying is correct, rather than to judge that it would be to his advantage to say something else? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From gordonrainsford at btinternet.com Wed Feb 18 10:52:24 2009 From: gordonrainsford at btinternet.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:52:24 +0000 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B46FA3D-08EE-462A-B0A7-5A84E2F38115@btinternet.com> On 17 Feb 2009, at 22:59, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: The Lawbook was designed to make life easy and > equitable for players, not for Directors. Really? It's this way by design? To make life easy for someone? From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 11:21:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:21:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick ................. > > [Sven Pran] > > Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. > > > > [Nigel] > > After reading the law but before reading director comments, I would have > > been lulled into a false sense of security if a director watched my > > table. I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and approve > > damage done to me by a law-breaker. This illustrates why real-world > > analogies fail to illuminate the murky microcosm of bridge "equity". > > Imagine your feelings about a policeman who tries to avoid detecting > > crime; but if he observes a rape or mugging, patiently waits until it's > > over before doing anything; and then ignores the plight of the victim :) > > If L81C3 was meant as a duty, it would probably read "any error" instead > of "an error". Anyway, I interpret it as a power. So the law lets me > correct any error or irregularity. > > It is still an interesting question of when I should intervene and when I > shouldn't. The Director must never intervene at the table where an irregularity has occurred before possible actions by the players no longer will have any effect on the outcome of that irregularity. Say that the Director notices a revoke. If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in time to prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the non-offending side? If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall have to give non-offending side a standard rectification for the revoke even if they (due to their own negligence) failed to address the revoke in time. Is this fair? Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has not gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he must delay his actions in that respect until it no longer matters what the involved players do. And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing the rights for either side then he should of course do so. Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 18 11:43:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:43:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> <8CB5EF608570843-12FC-1698@WEBMAIL-DY12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <005401c991b5$b4ed79e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> Message-ID: <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] The Director must never intervene at the table where an irregularity has occurred before possible actions by the players no longer will have any effect on the outcome of that irregularity. Say that the Director notices a revoke. If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in time to prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the non-offending side? If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall have to give non-offending side a standard rectification for the revoke even if they (due to their own negligence) failed to address the revoke in time. Is this fair? Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has not gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he must delay his actions in that respect until it no longer matters what the involved players do. And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing the rights for either side then he should of course do so. [Nigel] I accept that Sven Pran may well be right in the surreal world of Bridge Law; but I would appreciate an explanation As a simple-minded player, I would expect the director to interfere as soon as he was aware of an irregularity (here, the initial failure to follow suit). It just seems wrong for the director to condone the first (and subsequent) revokes; waiting until the hand is finished, then denying the victims redress, and merely restoring the status quo for the law-breakers. If the direcotor prevents an infraction or corrects it before ramifications occur, I can't understand on what legal basis the would-be law-breaker or his potential victims could object. What is the relevant law? Again to a naive player, it seems that Bridge should be played by its rules. Few players would want to gain from an infracton that can easily be prevented. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Feb 18 12:33:16 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:33:16 EST Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) Message-ID: +=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes some degree of likelihood and the law says that the opponents*shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Assessing whether something is "at all likely" cannot be a question of fact; it is clearly an evaluation of probability. And the phrase allows a range of interpretations of its value. So clearly the WBFLC intended the TD and AC to make this value judgement. I don't think it is at all likely that Elvis is still alive. Here my view is that the probability is infintessimaly small. We are very close to a question of fact. I don't think it is at all likely that the Liberal Democrats will win the next General Election in the UK. Here I think the probability is less than 2%. I don't think it is at all likely that West has the ace and king of clubs or he would have led one. But now we are getting to a higher figure - perhaps 10%. I don't think it is at all likely that the Birmingford Five were innocent. Now we might be getting up to an estimate of 20%. So I reject your concept that "at all likely" can be established as a fact; the meaning of the phrase in different contexts is too varied, and it is an estimate of "awareness" of a individual, which is difficult to reconcile with establishing a fact. I think that the phrase where proof is required to be absolute is "at all possible" not "at all likely", so I disagree with you on the burden of proof required; and I certainly reject your hypothesis that it does not involve a value judgement. From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 13:18:32 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:18:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000701c991c3$04c0bc40$0e4234c0$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > [Sven Pran] > The Director must never intervene at the table where an irregularity has > occurred before possible actions by the players no longer will have any > effect on the outcome of that irregularity. > > Say that the Director notices a revoke. > > If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming > established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in time to > prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the non-offending > side? > > If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall have to > give non-offending side a standard rectification for the revoke even if they > (due to their own negligence) failed to address the revoke in time. Is this > fair? > > Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has not > gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he must delay > his actions in that respect until it no longer matters what the involved > players do. > > And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an > irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing the > rights for either side then he should of course do so. > > [Nigel] > I accept that Sven Pran may well be right in the surreal world of Bridge Law; but I > would appreciate an explanation > > As a simple-minded player, I would expect the director to interfere as soon as he > was aware of an irregularity (here, the initial failure to follow suit). It just seems > wrong for the director to condone the first (and subsequent) revokes; waiting until > the hand is finished, then denying the victims redress, and merely restoring the > status quo for the law-breakers. > > If the direcotor prevents an infraction or corrects it before ramifications occur, I > can't understand on what legal basis the would-be law-breaker or his potential > victims could object. What is the relevant law? > > Again to a naive player, it seems that Bridge should be played by its rules. Few > players would want to gain from an infracton that can easily be prevented. When the Director notices an infraction it has already been committed, so the Director has no way to prevent this infraction by intervening. I suppose you do not want the Director to "sit on the shoulder" of a player and stop the player from playing a card with words like "you may not play that card, Sir!" As the Director obviously cannot monitor every player in the room, why should he monitor some? A different situation exists when a player has penalty card(s) or is under lead restrictions for other reasons. In such cases I try to remain at the table and guide the players as needed until the situation has been cleared completely. Sven From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 18 14:58:39 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:58:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$796 45800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> < 000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <499C140F.9050204@meteo.fr> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Sven Pran] The Director must never intervene at the table where an > irregularity has occurred before possible actions by the players no > longer will have any effect on the outcome of that irregularity. > > Say that the Director notices a revoke. > > If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming > established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in > time to prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the > non-offending side? > > If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall > have to give non-offending side a standard rectification for the > revoke even if they (due to their own negligence) failed to address > the revoke in time. Is this fair? > > Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has > not gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he > must delay his actions in that respect until it no longer matters > what the involved players do. > > And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an > irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing > the rights for either side then he should of course do so. > > [Nigel] I accept that Sven Pran may well be right in the surreal > world of Bridge Law; but I would appreciate an explanation > > As a simple-minded player, I would expect the director to interfere > as soon as he was aware of an irregularity (here, the initial failure > to follow suit). It just seems wrong for the director to condone the > first (and subsequent) revokes; waiting until the hand is finished, > then denying the victims redress, and merely restoring the status quo > for the law-breakers. when do you want the director to interfere? asap? before it becomes established? do you think the victims will be pleased? jpr > > If the direcotor prevents an infraction or corrects it before > ramifications occur, I can't understand on what legal basis the > would-be law-breaker or his potential victims could object. What is > the relevant law? > > Again to a naive player, it seems that Bridge should be played by its > rules. Few players would want to gain from an infracton that can > easily be prevented. > > -- _______________________________________________ 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 jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 18 15:01:32 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:01:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary; help! In-Reply-To: References: <499B3AE8.1070505@aol.com> Message-ID: <499C14BC.5040003@meteo.fr> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > 2009/2/17 Jeff Easterson : >> Allow me to first express my admiration for the job Ton has done. It has >> surely cost him a great deal of time and concentration. Yes, there are >> a few places where the English can be cleaned up a bit (Grattan?) but >> that is of no importance. I think that there are probably a few typos >> as well. >> >> But there are two passages that I don't understand. Since there have >> been no others questioning them I assume my obtuseness exceeds that of >> all other blmlers. i concur with the appreciation of the job and the value of the text. i had also problems with one point but a different one. about law 20, the advice is sound but the wording is confused and i didn't quite understand what the examples meant. i think it would be helpful to submit this part of the text to a sample and ask them how they understood it. >> >> Page 7 (Law 26): first three paragraphs. In the third paragraph Ton >> writes, "the legal 2 he. does show hearts." In the immediately preceding >> example to which he refers, didn't it also show hearts? The bid is >> accepted in this (the preceding) example in which it, as I understand >> Ton, showed hearts and diamonds. >> He writes (example) in third paragraph "the legal 2 heart does show >> heart. In that case the meaning is much different." Can someone >> clarify this for me? Why is "the meaning much different"? What am I >> missing here? first time 2H shows: (hearts + minor), second time 2H shows (hearts). it's different >> >> Page 8 (Law 27B1): The insufficient bid showed 4 or more hearts and >> 6+points. It is replaced by double which..."in other partnership >> agreements, shows hearts and diamonds and then it is contained in the >> meaning of the (insufficient) 1 heart bid, just showing hearts." This >> seems strange to me: a bid showing hearts and diamonds is contained in >> the meaning of a bid showing only hearts? Am I again missing something here? > > A bid that shows hearts include all hands with a heart suit, also > those with a diamond suit. > Thus you can replace a bid showing hearts with a bid showing hearts > and diamonds - the latter is indeed a subset of the first. > But it's not the other way around: If the insufficient bid showed both > hearts and diamonds, you can't replace it with a bid showing hearts, > since the diamond suit is missing. One suited heart hands aren't a > subset of hands with hearts and diamonds. it's a problem of vocabulary. "contain" may be read in two opposite ways if you don't specify to what it's applied. A= "hearts", B= "hearts and diamonds" text A is a subset of text B the set of hands which comply with B is a subset of the set of hands which comply with A i am not sure that the word "partition" (p.7) supposed to be used in a mathematical acceptation is adequate. if it is the same as "partition" in french, it'a quite different thing than "subset" and maybe not what ton intended. there may be confusion also with "or" (exclusive or not) and with a bid "showing only hearts" or "only showing hearts". jpr > -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 18 15:30:23 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:30:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000701c991c3$04c0bc40$0e4234c0$@no> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> <000701c991c3$04c0bc40$0e4234c0$@no> Message-ID: <499C1B7F.8090407@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] When the Director notices an infraction it has already been committed, so the Director has no way to prevent this infraction by intervening. I suppose you do not want the Director to "sit on the shoulder" of a player and stop the player from playing a card with words like "you may not play that card, Sir!" As the Director obviously cannot monitor every player in the room, why should he monitor some? A different situation exists when a player has penalty card(s) or is under lead restrictions for other reasons. In such cases I try to remain at the table and guide the players as needed until the situation has been cleared completely. [Nigel] I think I understand directors' arguments. I just disagree with them. A referee can't detect every foul, so should he ignore those he does see? I think not. If, at football, the referee observes an incipient altercation, should he remain a passive observer until the ambulance has removed the corpses? Just as at Bridge, I believe that a small infraction may become worse. At Bridge, I don't expect the director to sit on my shoulder but I do expect him to *prevent* obvious potential infractions that he happens to observe. For example - I detach a card of another suit when I can follow suit. - I fail to follow suit, but the revoke isn't established. - I've revoked once, and I'm about to revoke again in the same suit. - I've revoked on several previous hands and now I'm revoking again. If the director won't offer redress to my victims, then failure to prevent such infractions seems unfair. The laws are designed to favour the expert. An expert is more likely to notice an opponent's infraction. Law-breakers would be less likely to target beginners, if directors were more pro-active. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 18 15:48:17 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:48:17 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499C140F.9050204@meteo.fr> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$796 45800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> < 000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> <499C140F.9050204@meteo.fr> Message-ID: <499C1FB1.6070509@talktalk.net> [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] When do you want the director to interfere? asap? before it becomes established? do you think the victims will be pleased? [Nigel] Sometimes Yes (especially if I hadn't noticed the infraction). Perhaps, at other times No. But my feelings shouldn't affect the issue. Suppose a policeman catches an arsonist, in flagrante delicto :) should he wait until all the buildings burn down, just in case the owners would prefer to collect on the insurance? From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 18 15:55:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:55:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:21:51 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > ................. >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. >> > >> > [Nigel] >> > After reading the law but before reading director comments, I would >> have >> > been lulled into a false sense of security if a director watched my >> > table. I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and approve >> > damage done to me by a law-breaker. This illustrates why real-world >> > analogies fail to illuminate the murky microcosm of bridge "equity". >> > Imagine your feelings about a policeman who tries to avoid detecting >> > crime; but if he observes a rape or mugging, patiently waits until >> it's >> > over before doing anything; and then ignores the plight of the victim >> :) >> >> If L81C3 was meant as a duty, it would probably read "any error" instead >> of "an error". Anyway, I interpret it as a power. So the law lets me >> correct any error or irregularity. >> >> It is still an interesting question of when I should intervene and when >> I >> shouldn't. > > The Director must never intervene at the table where an irregularity has > occurred before possible actions by the players no longer will have any > effect on the outcome of that irregularity. > > Say that the Director notices a revoke. > > If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming > established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in time > to > prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the non-offending > side? > > If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall have > to > give non-offending side a standard rectification for the revoke even if > they > (due to their own negligence) failed to address the revoke in time. Is > this > fair? > > Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has not > gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he must > delay > his actions in that respect until it no longer matters what the involved > players do. Wow! You wait until the hands are shuffled, put back in the boards, and a call is made on the next auction. Then you inform the players that there was a revoke. I am curious if the players accept this calmly or get upset because they didn't think they revoked and the evidence is gone. Finding the revoking trick, to show the revoker that he revoked, seems so useful where I play. Then you have to figure out what would have happened, had the revoke not occurred, when the order of play is lost. I am losing confidence that you have actually followed this procedure. > > And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an > irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing the > rights for either side then he should of course do so. So if you see a card on the floor, you ignore it? How about if a player is about to lead from hand rather than play a penalty card? Bob, who decides ad hoc whether to intervene or not From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 16:53:29 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:53:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> Message-ID: <000001c991e1$0b055de0$211019a0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > On Behalf Of Robert Frick > > ................. > >> > [Sven Pran] > >> > Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. > >> > > >> > [Nigel] > >> > After reading the law but before reading director comments, I would > >> have > >> > been lulled into a false sense of security if a director watched my > >> > table. I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and approve > >> > damage done to me by a law-breaker. This illustrates why real-world > >> > analogies fail to illuminate the murky microcosm of bridge "equity". > >> > Imagine your feelings about a policeman who tries to avoid detecting > >> > crime; but if he observes a rape or mugging, patiently waits until > >> it's > >> > over before doing anything; and then ignores the plight of the victim > >> :) > >> > >> If L81C3 was meant as a duty, it would probably read "any error" instead > >> of "an error". Anyway, I interpret it as a power. So the law lets me > >> correct any error or irregularity. > >> > >> It is still an interesting question of when I should intervene and when > >> I > >> shouldn't. > > > > The Director must never intervene at the table where an irregularity has > > occurred before possible actions by the players no longer will have any > > effect on the outcome of that irregularity. > > > > Say that the Director notices a revoke. > > > > If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming > > established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in time > > to > > prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the non-offending > > side? > > > > If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall have > > to > > give non-offending side a standard rectification for the revoke even if > > they > > (due to their own negligence) failed to address the revoke in time. Is > > this > > fair? > > > > Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has not > > gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he must > > delay > > his actions in that respect until it no longer matters what the involved > > players do. > > Wow! You wait until the hands are shuffled, put back in the boards, and a > call is made on the next auction. Then you inform the players that there > was a revoke. Just tell me what prevents the Director from quietly gathering sufficient evidence for his subsequent action in case the revoke goes undetected? > > I am curious if the players accept this calmly or get upset because they > didn't think they revoked and the evidence is gone. Finding the revoking > trick, to show the revoker that he revoked, seems so useful where I play. > > Then you have to figure out what would have happened, had the revoke not > occurred, when the order of play is lost. I am losing confidence that you > have actually followed this procedure. > > > > > And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an > > irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing the > > rights for either side then he should of course do so. > > So if you see a card on the floor, you ignore it? How about if a player is > about to lead from hand rather than play a penalty card? Who said I ignore it? If I find a card where no card should be I just take possession of that card and await somebody to call me with "I have only twelve cards!" Sometimes that card belongs in a board already played at all tables and I shall find the incomplete hand when operating my card dealing machine the next time. Sometimes I get the call from a player who counted his cards before looking at them, lucky for him. And sometimes - alas for the perpetrator - I get the call from a player who didn't count his cards and have played most of the hand before discovering that he is a card short. > Bob, who decides ad hoc whether to intervene or not That is perfectly OK as long as you do not jeopardize any player's rights. Sven From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 16:57:22 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:57:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499C1FB1.6070509@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$796 45800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> < 000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> <499C140F.9050204@meteo.fr> <499C1FB1.6070509@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <000101c991e1$96612db0$c3238910$@no> On Behalf Of Nigel Guthrie > [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] > > When do you want the director to interfere? asap? before it becomes established? > do you think the victims will be pleased? > > [Nigel] > Sometimes Yes (especially if I hadn't noticed the infraction). Perhaps, at other > times No. But my feelings shouldn't affect the issue. Suppose a policeman catches > an arsonist, in flagrante delicto :) should he wait until all the buildings burn down, > just in case the owners would prefer to collect on the insurance? If you cannot understand the difference between the roles of a tournament director in bridge, a referee at football (or soccer) and a policeman observing a criminal act in progress I'm sorry but this discussion makes no sense. Bye Sven. From jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Wed Feb 18 17:04:24 2009 From: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr (Jean-Pierre Rocafort) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:04:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499C1FB1.6070509@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79 6 45800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> < 000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net><499C 140F.9050204@meteo.fr> <499C1FB1.6070509@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <499C3188.5010408@meteo.fr> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Jean-Pierre Rocafort] > > When do you want the director to interfere? asap? before it becomes > established? do you think the victims will be pleased? > > [Nigel] Sometimes Yes (especially if I hadn't noticed the > infraction). Perhaps, at other times No. But my feelings shouldn't > affect the issue. Suppose a policeman catches an arsonist, in > flagrante delicto :) should he wait until all the buildings burn > down, just in case the owners would prefer to collect on the > insurance? it's only a game. parallels with real life don't automatically fit. with the same analogy you could conclude that spectators should also draw attention to revokes, or make the law about spectators anticonstitutionnal. jpr -- _______________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/CM 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort at meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-France: http://www.meteo.fr _______________________________________________ From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 18 17:25:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:25:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c991e1$0b055de0$211019a0$@no> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <000001c991e1$0b055de0$211019a0$@no> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:53:29 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> > On Behalf Of Robert Frick >> > ................. >> >> > [Sven Pran] >> >> > Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. >> >> > >> >> > [Nigel] >> >> > After reading the law but before reading director comments, I would >> >> have >> >> > been lulled into a false sense of security if a director watched my >> >> > table. I wouldn't expect the director to observe, condone, and > approve >> >> > damage done to me by a law-breaker. This illustrates why real-world >> >> > analogies fail to illuminate the murky microcosm of bridge >> "equity". >> >> > Imagine your feelings about a policeman who tries to avoid >> detecting >> >> > crime; but if he observes a rape or mugging, patiently waits until >> >> it's >> >> > over before doing anything; and then ignores the plight of the >> victim >> >> :) >> >> >> >> If L81C3 was meant as a duty, it would probably read "any error" > instead >> >> of "an error". Anyway, I interpret it as a power. So the law lets me >> >> correct any error or irregularity. >> >> >> >> It is still an interesting question of when I should intervene and >> when >> >> I >> >> shouldn't. >> > >> > The Director must never intervene at the table where an irregularity >> has >> > occurred before possible actions by the players no longer will have >> any >> > effect on the outcome of that irregularity. >> > >> > Say that the Director notices a revoke. >> > >> > If he intervenes immediately he will prevent the revoke from becoming >> > established even if the offending side was unaware of the revoke in >> time >> > to >> > prevent it from becoming established. Is this fair to the >> non-offending >> > side? >> > >> > If he intervenes just after the revoke becomes established he shall >> have >> > to >> > give non-offending side a standard rectification for the revoke even >> if >> > they >> > (due to their own negligence) failed to address the revoke in time. Is >> > this >> > fair? >> > >> > Eventually the Director should see to it that the offending side has >> not >> > gained from its own irregularity, but in the case of a revoke he must >> > delay >> > his actions in that respect until it no longer matters what the >> involved >> > players do. >> >> Wow! You wait until the hands are shuffled, put back in the boards, and >> a >> call is made on the next auction. Then you inform the players that there >> was a revoke. > > Just tell me what prevents the Director from quietly gathering sufficient > evidence for his subsequent action in case the revoke goes undetected? > >> >> I am curious if the players accept this calmly or get upset because they >> didn't think they revoked and the evidence is gone. Finding the revoking >> trick, to show the revoker that he revoked, seems so useful where I >> play. >> >> Then you have to figure out what would have happened, had the revoke not >> occurred, when the order of play is lost. I am losing confidence that >> you >> have actually followed this procedure. >> >> > >> > And just to make that clear: When the Director becomes aware of an >> > irregularity that can be acted upon immediately without jeopardizing >> the >> > rights for either side then he should of course do so. >> >> So if you see a card on the floor, you ignore it? How about if a player >> is >> about to lead from hand rather than play a penalty card? > > Who said I ignore it? If I find a card where no card should be I just > take > possession of that card and await somebody to call me with "I have only > twelve cards!" > > Sometimes that card belongs in a board already played at all tables and I > shall find the incomplete hand when operating my card dealing machine the > next time. > Sometimes I get the call from a player who counted his cards before > looking > at them, lucky for him. > And sometimes - alas for the perpetrator - I get the call from a player > who > didn't count his cards and have played most of the hand before > discovering > that he is a card short. Hi Sven. Just to be clear, I think your interpretation of the law is correct. But waiting until after the hands are shuffled and put away does not seem very practical. If you start writing down the hand as soon as the revoke occurs, but before it is established, then you might alert the revoker to the problem. If you start writing down the hand after the revoke occurs, then you might alert the opponents to fact that a revoke occurred. But if you just use memory, no problem. You would have to present your reconstruction to the opps between rounds or after the game; there would probably be no time to work it out at the table. Same problem for a card on the floor. Stooping to pick it up may very well alert the player to the fact that he has dropped it. I think the laws require you to leave it there. I was serious about asking about the dropped card. In my head, a dropped card is different from a revoke. I didn't know if the laws could be used to differentiate them. You did not answer about the player who is about to lead from hand instead of playing a penalty card. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 18 18:34:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:34:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:33:16 -0500, wrote: > +=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value > judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard > of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed > I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes > some degree of likelihood and the law says that the > opponents*shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > Assessing whether something is "at all likely" cannot be a question of > fact; > it is clearly an evaluation of probability. And the phrase allows a > range of > interpretations of its value. So clearly the WBFLC intended the TD and > AC to > make this value judgement. > I don't think it is at all likely that Elvis is still alive. Here my > view is > that the probability is infintessimaly small. We are very close to a > question > of fact. > I don't think it is at all likely that the Liberal Democrats will win the > next General Election in the UK. Here I think the probability is less > than 2%. > I don't think it is at all likely that West has the ace and king of > clubs or > he would have led one. But now we are getting to a higher figure - > perhaps > 10%. > I don't think it is at all likely that the Birmingford Five were > innocent. > Now we might be getting up to an estimate of 20%. > So I reject your concept that "at all likely" can be established as a > fact; > the meaning of the phrase in different contexts is too varied, and it is > an > estimate of "awareness" of a individual, which is difficult to reconcile > with > establishing a fact. I think that the phrase where proof is required to > be > absolute is "at all possible" not "at all likely", so I disagree with > you on the > burden of proof required; and I certainly reject your hypothesis that it > does not involve a value judgement. "at all likely" has to be interpreted. Say we put a number on it, like 5%. Then there is an judgment as to whether declarer was 5% likely to have forgotten the trump. Obviously an AC can overrule the director on the second decision, which is a judgment. Can the AC overrule the director on the first point, which is an interpretation of the Law? In the actual case, the TD Panel took it upon themselves to interpret the claim law. The fact that their interpretation is impractical and nontraditional aside, can they do that? Or is interpreting the law a point of law that the director doesn't have to accept? http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/Boston2008/03-Non-NABC+.pdf From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 18 18:40:55 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:40:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary; help! In-Reply-To: <499B3AE8.1070505@aol.com> References: <499B3AE8.1070505@aol.com> Message-ID: On Feb 17, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Allow me to first express my admiration for the job Ton has done. > It has > surely cost him a great deal of time and concentration. Yes, there > are > a few places where the English can be cleaned up a bit (Grattan?) but > that is of no importance. I think that there are probably a few typos > as well. > > But there are two passages that I don't understand. Since there have > been no others questioning them I assume my obtuseness exceeds that of > all other blmlers. > > Page 7 (Law 26): first three paragraphs. In the third paragraph Ton > writes, "the legal 2 he. does show hearts." In the immediately > preceding > example to which he refers, didn't it also show hearts? The bid is > accepted in this (the preceding) example in which it, as I understand > Ton, showed hearts and diamonds. > He writes (example) in third paragraph "the legal 2 heart does show > heart. In that case the meaning is much different." Can someone > clarify this for me? Why is "the meaning much different"? What am I > missing here? > > Page 8 (Law 27B1): The insufficient bid showed 4 or more hearts and > 6+points. It is replaced by double which..."in other partnership > agreements, shows hearts and diamonds and then it is contained in the > meaning of the (insufficient) 1 heart bid, just showing hearts." This > seems strange to me: a bid showing hearts and diamonds is contained in > the meaning of a bid showing only hearts? Am I again missing > something here? The language is confusing, but the operational test is easy: Given the RC, does the IB provide any additional information? If not, the RC may be made without penalty. Here the RC (double) shows (something along the lines of) either 4+ hearts and 4+ diamonds with 7 + HCP, or 5+ hearts with 7-10 HCP. The IB showed (something like) 4+ hearts with 5+ HCP, but that adds nothing to the information already imparted by the RC, so it can be made without penalty. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 18 18:51:27 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:51:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> Message-ID: <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> On Feb 17, 2009, at 7:59 PM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au >> +=+ Would you not say that the function of the director is to >> verify the claim, not to play the hand for the claimer? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> A claim and/or concession is never an irregularity (unless one >> intentionally claims more tricks than one is entitled to). But >> the question to be resolved is whether conceding one trick too >> many is a Law 81C3 "error". If the answer to that question is >> Yes, then Grattan's use of the word "verify" begs the question, >> petitio principii. >> >> Perhaps more light can be shed on this "What is equity?" issue if >> we examine a similar hypothetical case first discussed on blml >> some years ago, when the 1997 Lawbook was in effect. >> >> * * * >> >> The scenario is that a bored Director arrives at a table without >> being summoned and observes the play to recherche du temps perdu. >> >> But what the Director observes is declarer perpetrating an >> established revoke, and the defenders failing to notice the >> established revoke. (Declarer may or may not have realised that >> she had perpetrated an established revoke, but Law 72B2 gives her >> the right to remain silent and the right to one phone call.) > .............. >> Would you rule that it is not the function of the Director to >> defend the hand for the defenders? > > Absolutely. > > The Director should not in any way interfere until after the time > specified > in Law 64B4 or Law 64B5, whichever comes first, has expired.. > > Thereafter the Director should use Law 64C: > > Equity for the offending side is the score they would have received > had > attention to the revoke been called in time. > > Equity for the non-offending side is the table result. The only > exception > from this is if there is some special reason for allowing the non- > offending > side redress for damage caused by the revoke in spite of not calling > attention to the revoke in time. (An example of such reason could be a > violation of Law 72B3.) It doesn't seem as though the director should do anything at all. When the TD is not called, but happens to notice an irregularity in passing, how can it be equitable for either pair to receive a different result from what they would have gotten had the TD happened to be looking in some other direction at that particular moment? Unfortunately, that's exactly what, contrary to common sense, L81C3 seems to call for. I wouldn't criticize a director who decided that that unfortunate revoke he thought he might have seen in passing really didn't register. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 18:56:06 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:56:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <000001c991e1$0b055de0$211019a0$@no> Message-ID: <000a01c991f2$2c8f45f0$85add1d0$@no> On Behalf Of Robert Frick .............. > Hi Sven. Just to be clear, I think your interpretation of the law is > correct. > > But waiting until after the hands are shuffled and put away does not seem > very practical. If you start writing down the hand as soon as the revoke > occurs, but before it is established, then you might alert the revoker to > the problem. If you start writing down the hand after the revoke occurs, > then you might alert the opponents to fact that a revoke occurred. But if > you just use memory, no problem. I should in case take extreme care not to alert the players. Near the table I shall mainly use my memory. Back around 1982 or so I was asked to direct the Norwegian premier league. (I was a rookie at that time so I was rather surprised from being asked.) I did some kibitzing and suddenly noticed one player making a terrible error in his play against a slam contract. This apparently shattered him so much that on the next board he was only a split second from revoking. I cannot imagine the resulting uproar had I intervened and been the one to stop him from revoking; of course I kept completely silent. > You would have to present your reconstruction to the opps between rounds > or after the game; there would probably be no time to work it out at the > table. Correct. > > Same problem for a card on the floor. Stooping to pick it up may very well > alert the player to the fact that he has dropped it. I think the laws > require you to leave it there. I should in case take extreme care not to alert the players. (Repeating myself!) Before taking any action I shall first try to determine by quietly watching the table if the card I have observed belongs (or could belong) to the board currently in play. > > I was serious about asking about the dropped card. In my head, a dropped > card is different from a revoke. A dropped card does not automatically constitute a revoke, but can lead to a revoke, namely if the player from who's hand the card is missing fails to follow suit in the denomination of the missing card. > I didn't know if the laws could be used > to differentiate them. You did not answer about the player who is about to > lead from hand instead of playing a penalty card. When a player has penalty card(s) I always (if possible) remain at the table until the situation is fully resolved just to make sure that ignorance does not lead to further irregularities. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 18 19:16:42 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:16:42 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: <8CB5EF608570843-12FC-1698@WEBMAIL-DY12.sysops.aol.com> References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com> <8CB5EF608570843-12FC-1698@WEBMAIL-DY12.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Feb 17, 2009, at 4:05 AM, gampas at aol.com wrote: > [Adam Wildasky] > 3. I agree with the panel's ruling. East ought to have saved us this > trouble, though. A player with almost 700 masterpoints surely knows > that he ought to mention an outstanding trump when he claims, and that > if he doesn't he risks losing a trick to it > The panel's ruling is an important case law, and this is why we have > appeals books. We now have an established standard for what to do > about careless > claims. > > [David Grabiner] > I disagree. I think the panel ruling is egregiously bad. > > [paul lamford] > I agree with the panel's ruling, and Adam expresses it very well. > In every case the TD or AC just has to decide whether it was at all > likely that the declarer was unaware of the missing trump. They > decided in this case that it was not "at all likely". A simple > value judgement, whether you agree with or not; so "egregiously > bad" is wrong. Mr Burn would no doubt prefer a claim law where > doubtful points in faulty claims are resolved by the opponents > selecting a legal card for the declarer at each stage. But this is > not Law. > > A similar example with one trump outstanding would be a declarer in > Seven Spades with > > S AK432 H A432 D 5 C KJ3 opposite S QJT65 H 5 D A432 C AQ2 on a > club lead. > > He draws one round of trumps to which all follow. He now says "they > are all mine, I can score three ruffs in dummy"; he omits to state > that he will draw the second trump. There are two possibilities: > > a) Declarer mistakenly thought 5+5 equalled 11, and is unaware of > the missing trump. East gets an overruff on the fourth round of > diamonds with his eight of spades. One off. > > b) Declarer was aware that he had 10 trumps, and knew that he could > claim precisely after finding they were 2-1. I have no problem with the example, but I question the analogy. Here declarer, on lead, has claimed with "three ruffs in dummy" at precisely the point at which he learns that he will be able to take those ruffs safely after drawing all the trump. It's easy to decide that he knows what he's doing. It would be a very different story if all he had said was, "They are all mine," with nothing further to suggest any plan for the remaining play, and might well go against him. The declarer in the original case was not on lead, had not been drawing trumps, said nothing to indicate that he was aware of the outstanding trump, and failed to indicate a subsequent line of play on which drawing the last trump would be normal (albeit not "normal"). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 18 19:37:11 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:37:11 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <499C1B7F.8090407@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> <000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> <000701c991c3$04c0bc40$0e4234c0$@no> <499C1B7F.8090407@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <30A1C7AB-3974-44BE-AA00-0462F023CC6A@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Sven Pran] > > When the Director notices an infraction it has already been > committed, so > the Director has no way to prevent this infraction by intervening. > > I suppose you do not want the Director to "sit on the shoulder" of > a player > and stop the player from playing a card with words like "you may > not play > that card, Sir!" As the Director obviously cannot monitor every > player in > the room, why should he monitor some? > > A different situation exists when a player has penalty card(s) or > is under > lead restrictions for other reasons. In such cases I try to remain > at the > table and guide the players as needed until the situation has been > cleared > completely. > > [Nigel] > I think I understand directors' arguments. I just disagree with them. > > A referee can't detect every foul, so should he ignore those he > does see? I think not. If, at football, the referee observes an > incipient altercation, should he remain a passive observer until > the ambulance has removed the corpses? Just as at Bridge, I believe > that a small infraction may become worse. In American football, officials on the field are (collectively) responsible for watching all of the action on the field; when they see an infraction, they call a penalty. But all of the action takes place in the open, and it is their job to watch it all. There is also a "replay official" who monitors the action on television. He has the opportunity to observe instances in which the officials on the field may have missed something or called it incorrectly and review the action in detail, and he has the power to change the on-field call to "restore equity" in those cases. But he cannot (normally) do so on his own; only if one of the coaches requests a review (which they may do only, usually, twice per game) does he do anything at all. ISTM that the function of the director at a bridge game is more analogous to that of the replay official than that of the on-field referee. > At Bridge, I don't expect the director to sit on my shoulder but I > do expect him to *prevent* obvious potential infractions that he > happens to observe. For example > - I detach a card of another suit when I can follow suit. > - I fail to follow suit, but the revoke isn't established. > - I've revoked once, and I'm about to revoke again in the same suit. > - I've revoked on several previous hands and now I'm revoking again. > If the director won't offer redress to my victims, then failure to > prevent such infractions seems unfair. > > The laws are designed to favour the expert. An expert is more > likely to notice an opponent's infraction. Law-breakers would be > less likely to target beginners, if directors were more pro-active. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 18 19:57:36 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:57:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) References: <694eadd40902131027t3a26291axd56a09994740fdad@mail.gmail.com><7e7228820902161327nd9f5a59t3e269d011c4cd65@mail.gmail.com><003201c990d4$04a41b20$15844c59@chello.pl> <7e7228820902171354q4beb1747u23d628f316489649@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004501c991fa$c3d15fe0$15844c59@chello.pl> > 2009/2/17 Bystry : > > 1) you write that it is remotely useful to mention drawing trumps. It seems > > that for you it is obvious that *everyone* who claims *always* remembers > > about remaining trumps. You disagree with my appraisal? Not everyone and not > > always? So tell me, how can the opponents know whether that one, specific > > claimer remembers or not? Do they have to possess mind-reading skills? > > No, I just say that anyone claiming *in this situation* always > remember about an outstanding trump. On what do you base your belief? On a complexity of a deal? In my opinion it works the other way - it's easier to miscount trumps if you have many of them, not when declaring complicated contract with 6 or 7 trumps. In the first case people become subjectively safe, and subjective safety frequently induces carelessness. In the second case people have to prepare precise plan, watch discards, count the suits etc, i.e. remain concentrated, so especially for good players the probability of forgetting about a trump is very low. > As it happens bridge often is a > game of mind-reading, since mind-reading is collecting various clues > in order to "guess" correctly. Here the hand was over at trick 2 from > declarer point of view : he just plays as he did, hoping that the > defense will either let him slip past the SJ or fail to cash out (much > less likely). When this doesn't happen the hand is over for everybody > and he claims. Do you know that declarer? Do you know anything about his skills, thoughts, level of concetration at the table? He demonstrated nothing clever during the play, au contraire, he should have ducked the opening lead (taking it wins only if S had two singletons), and unblocking the diamond (mistakenly praised by the Panel) denied any defenders' chance to make a mistake, it was like showing the hand to them (with this layout good defenders wouldn't spoil anything, although bad ones could, but with other layouts NS could have a difficult decision to make). I repeat, Panel had to make a judgement ruling and they made it. I disagree with it but that doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong. What is surely wrong is stating that the declarer (who by the way played the hand badly) *couldn't* forget about the outstanding trump. He had 10 of them and it's not that improbable that he thought he'd had 11. > > 2) you try to make an impression that you never make silly mistakes, like > > forgetting about remaining small trump. Sorry, but I don't believe in it. I > > haven't met any bridge player, no matter how skillful, who never made any > > silly mistake. Even top experts sometimes forget about something important, > > have mind-locks, fail to be careful in watching opponents' played cards (and > > in result take club as a spade or something like that) etc. That's why it is > > so important to issue claim statements, especially when the period between > > first use of trumps and claim is long. > > Exactly, here the period between the first use of trump and the claim > is nil if you consider the "mental claim", and the minimum for the > actual claim : declarer played trump, and claimed as soon as he had > the opportunity to continue (and finish) doing so. On the other hand, > fooling around with side suits when there are outstanding trumps, then > claiming (when the side suit splits for instance) is a very good > indication that the trump has been forgotten. I know nothing about the "mental claim" in that player's head. Do you know anything more? Have in mind that he is a player of different skill than yours, probably of different mental traits and additionally coming from a different culture than you (in his culture most people say "drawing trump"). It is not correct to substitute yourself (or any other TD) in his place and draw conclusions. You have to judge that, specific, player, at a pinch using his peers as help. So, again, Panel might have been right, but you are certainly not. > > 3) you threaten to leave the competition after TD's ruling giving a trick to > > your opponents. So in fact your are admitting that you have no respect for > > bridge laws and officials trying to rule according to them. Because the laws > > *oblige* you to issue claim statements, not leave it to your whim whether > > you want to be magnanimous and say something or not. Because the laws > > *order* the TD to make a judgement ruling, whether it is at all likely that > > you forgot about the remaining trump or not. TDs aren't clairvoyant, so they > > cannot read your mind, and they have no reason to believe that Jean-Jacques > > never forgets about trumps. > > This is indeed a judgement ruling that happens to be easy enough so > that neither the opponents nor the TD should get it wrong, and > therefore I have little respect for their competence. This statement is highly disdainful, without any reason. How can you know that the declarer wasn't a confused bunny, whose behavior at the table provoked the defenders to question his sanity? How can you know that the TD hadn't the same impression? There is a significant time interval between the ruling and the appeal, even the most confused bunny has enough time to come to his senses/obtain help from experienced friends/think about the line of defense before the AC. Have you never heard of AC meatings in which poor players protested that they would have played the hand brilliantly, although they said nothing about it to the TD? > I am convinced that declarer was aware of the missing trump (at least > I would be in France during a serious event, I played in ACBL three or > four times, but it was 15 years ago and at club level), so that the It was not a serious event (Daylight Open Pairs, Non-NABC+) and it was not in France (in USA "drawing trump" statements are standard). > minor infraction (a "should" is used in the law) has no consequence, "Should" is not minor, rather average. Anyway, it is still an infraction to which I cannot find justification. That declarer said "The rest are mine". Try to say it and measure the passing time. Now imagine that the declarer put a high spade at the table (C8 was already played at the moment of the claim) and said "drawing trump" or alternatively said "ruffing high, drawing trump", say it yourself and measure the passing time. Do you find any significant difference? Sorry, such statements are so short, so easy, that I would fully support the change in the laws to the effect that *every time* the remaining trump was not mentioned the claimer loses a trick to it (unless of course it is impossible by any legal/normal play). > and the opponent try to rob the field of a normal result to get a top > instead. We are not talking about "waving a penalty" here, but asking > for ruling *hoping that the TD will get it wrong* so that you will > gain. At least this is exactly what I felt reading the case. How can you know about the opponents' motives? You arbitrarily decided that the claimer is a good guy and the defenders bad guys, without knowing them, being there, listening to them. That disqualifies you as a TD or AC member in my opinion, because you set your personal approach to claiming above the letter of the laws and above the duty of every TD to collect and weigh the evidence. > > 5) I agree with Bob that this ruling was bad. Not because I disagree with > > Panel's judgement, they were there, not me, and they had full right to make > > such decision. But their justification is absurd, as Bob explained in his > > email very well. > > I agree that the "therefore" in the writing is a bit like a "proof is > left as an exercise to the reader", but then again, it is the way the > hand was played that explains the "no doubt he was aware of the > missing trump". The way the hand was played only shows that the declarer was rather poor, nothing more. > On a more personal note, I would really like to encourage claiming as > much as possible, for instance by dropping the "for the purpose of > disconcerting an opponent" part of 74B4, or at least changing it to > "if this disconcerts an opponent", I am so easily disconcerted :-) Yeah, you want to force beginners to make claims when they are totally unsure what is going on? Believe me, it would be a great waste of time, those beginners play much faster than they would claim. And excluding beginners all the bridge players that I know claim regularly. > And if this means that one ruling out of ten in cases of careless > claims goes in favor of the claimer when it probably shouldn't have, > fine by me ! I have one question for you - is there anything in the laws that stops you from accepting any claim you wish? You may say it proudly to all your opponents before the play commences "I will accept any claims from you, no matter how careless or mistaken". That way you will play the game as you like it, not prohibiting others to play the game as they like it. > Jean-Jacques. Regards Maciej From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Feb 18 20:37:33 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 11:37:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] What is equity? References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> Message-ID: From: "Eric Landau" > When the TD is not called, but happens to notice an irregularity > in > passing, how can it be equitable for either pair to receive a > different result from what they would have gotten had the TD > happened > to be looking in some other direction at that particular moment? > > Unfortunately, that's exactly what, contrary to common sense, > L81C3 > seems to call for. I wouldn't criticize a director who decided > that > that unfortunate revoke he thought he might have seen in passing > really didn't register. Exactly right. In duplicate bridge tradition it was solely the responsibility of players at the table to notice irregularities and make Director calls. Many years ago players at a nearby table were arguing about a potential revoke. I signalled a nearby TD to come over and said, "It's not my business, but I think that table needs your help." Her reply was, "You're right, it's not your business," and she walked away. That was not an incorrect reaction at the time, going by the 1963 Laws that were in effect. In the1975 Laws a new item was added under Director's Duties and Powers: 6. Errors. To correct any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware. In the 1997 Laws this was reinforced by the addition of "in any manner." I like the 1963 version. It is unfair for a table to get more TD attention than other tables. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From darkbystry at wp.pl Wed Feb 18 20:41:37 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:41:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> Message-ID: <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> > It doesn't seem as though the director should do anything at all. > When the TD is not called, but happens to notice an irregularity in > passing, how can it be equitable for either pair to receive a > different result from what they would have gotten had the TD happened > to be looking in some other direction at that particular moment? I don't want to engage in this whole discussion yet, but that statement (and strange "definition" of equity) drew my attention. First an analogy - a policeman comes back home after the work hours and sees a thief trying to steal your car. Should he intervene or do nothing reasoning that he is there accidentally and it would be unfair to the thief (?) and all other Eric's (who had their cars stolen)? Second - even the most fervent followers of "equity" in bridge rulings state that "equity" is a statistical, probable outcome of a deal *without* an infraction. Now you state that for you "equity" is an outcome of the deal without noticed infractions, so for example if cheats find a great defense with a help of fingering there should be no adjustment? Or if one opponent sees a slight grimace at his partner's face and uses this UI all is ok? Such reasoning would result in paranoia, because every player would have to be his own policeman, so he would have to thoroughly check the whole layout after the board, question every good defense of his opponents etc etc. Sorry, but it is impossible - there is usually not enough time to make full analysis between the boards/rounds and poorer players may lack knowledge to diagnose that they had been cheated. Of course I know that the TDs cannot be everywhere, that some fouls have to remain overlooked. But that is no reason not to intervene when some of those fouls can be redressed. I'm certainly not advocating interrupting the board during the play (although I might support repairing the incorrect number of cards in any player's hand), but after the last trick is gone is a perfect time to correct any infractions that may be still corrected. I see nothing unfair or inequitable in doing just that. > Unfortunately, that's exactly what, contrary to common sense, L81C3 > seems to call for. I wouldn't criticize a director who decided that > that unfortunate revoke he thought he might have seen in passing > really didn't register. I would demand his resignation - directors are not there to break the laws. Wouldn't you criticize a player who realizes he gave MI to his opponents, but fails to correct it because he's aware that this correction would result in getting a bottom (and "hurting" the mythical field) , whereas failing to correct results in something close to an average ("equity" supporters favourable result)? > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Feb 18 22:18:29 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:18:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:41 PM, Bystry wrote: >> It doesn't seem as though the director should do anything at all. >> When the TD is not called, but happens to notice an irregularity in >> passing, how can it be equitable for either pair to receive a >> different result from what they would have gotten had the TD happened >> to be looking in some other direction at that particular moment? > > I don't want to engage in this whole discussion yet, but that > statement (and > strange "definition" of equity) drew my attention. > > First an analogy - a policeman comes back home after the work hours > and sees > a thief trying to steal your car. Should he intervene or do nothing > reasoning that he is there accidentally and it would be unfair to > the thief > (?) and all other Eric's (who had their cars stolen)? Bridge isn't real life, and stealing cars isn't playing a a game. A better analogy would be a policeman who walks past a baseball field and notices a runner about to steal second base. Should he warn the catcher? > Second - even the most fervent followers of "equity" in bridge > rulings state > that "equity" is a statistical, probable outcome of a deal > *without* an > infraction. Now you state that for you "equity" is an outcome of > the deal > without noticed infractions, so for example if cheats find a great > defense > with a help of fingering there should be no adjustment? Or if one > opponent > sees a slight grimace at his partner's face and uses this UI all is > ok? That wasn't some "strange 'definition'" of "equity" in some bridge sense, it was "equitable" in ordinary English, which the dictionary defines in part as "impartial". It is not "impartial" for a director to pick one table and enforce rules there that he would not, in equivalent circumstances, enforce at some other table, even if only because he can't watch all tables with equal attention simultaneously. > Such reasoning would result in paranoia, because every player would > have to > be his own policeman, so he would have to thoroughly check the > whole layout > after the board, question every good defense of his opponents etc etc. > Sorry, but it is impossible - there is usually not enough time to > make full > analysis between the boards/rounds and poorer players may lack > knowledge to > diagnose that they had been cheated. Anything "every player" would have to do would just as much have to be done, otherwise, by every player except the ones at whose table the director happened to be refereeing at the time. > Of course I know that the TDs cannot be everywhere, that some fouls > have to > remain overlooked. But that is no reason not to intervene when some > of those > fouls can be redressed. I'm certainly not advocating interrupting > the board > during the play (although I might support repairing the incorrect > number of > cards in any player's hand), but after the last trick is gone is a > perfect > time to correct any infractions that may be still corrected. I see > nothing > unfair or inequitable in doing just that. If it's a perfect time to correct any infractions, shouldn't the director be proactive in correcting any infractions? Of course that would mean checking for them and finding them. Why should he only correct the ones he happened to see earlier? >> Unfortunately, that's exactly what, contrary to common sense, L81C3 >> seems to call for. I wouldn't criticize a director who decided that >> that unfortunate revoke he thought he might have seen in passing >> really didn't register. > > I would demand his resignation - directors are not there to break > the laws. > Wouldn't you criticize a player who realizes he gave MI to his > opponents, > but fails to correct it because he's aware that this correction > would result > in getting a bottom (and "hurting" the mythical field) , whereas > failing to > correct results in something close to an average ("equity" supporters > favourable result)? If you would demand his resignation, would you not, to be consistent, have to demand as well the resignation of a director who sat at the scoring table for the entire round, when he could have been wandering the floor looking for infractions to correct? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 18 23:36:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:36:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499A6DAE.7070001@skynet.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: [snip] >>>(c) Do I want a self-deluding compromise by idiosyncratically >>> interpreting the Laws, gaining a score advantage over those >>> who correctly* apply the Laws? (The ______ __ ____ strategy) >>> >>>* Which I self-deludingly refuse to believe. Herman De Wael complained: >>Henk, can we really accept posts like this? Henk Uijterwaal (moderator) public email: >This will be discussed offline with the poster. > >Henk Henk Uijterwaal (moderator) private email: >I think Herman has a point here. Please stick to business language. > >Henk Correct business language from Morris Bishop (27th September 1947): I lately lost a preposition It hid, I thought, beneath my chair And angrily I cried, "Perdition! Up from out of in under there." Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor, And yet I wondered, "What should he come Up from out of in under for?" Richard Hills, business language correction of previous posting: (c) Do I want to boldly go where no player has gone before, imitating Galileo in correctly discovering new interpretations of Law, while contemporaries who are analogous to the Spanish Inquisition* dogmatically adhere to obsolete and inadequate interpretations of Law -- which also give the Spanish Inquisition* score disadvantages -- while I and my accurate acolytes gain deserved better scores? (The Gandhi strategy.) * Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 19 00:03:25 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:03:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no><1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net><006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> > > I don't want to engage in this whole discussion yet, but that > > statement (and > > strange "definition" of equity) drew my attention. > > > > First an analogy - a policeman comes back home after the work hours > > and sees > > a thief trying to steal your car. Should he intervene or do nothing > > reasoning that he is there accidentally and it would be unfair to > > the thief > > (?) and all other Eric's (who had their cars stolen)? > > Bridge isn't real life, and stealing cars isn't playing a a game. A > better analogy would be a policeman who walks past a baseball field > and notices a runner about to steal second base. Should he warn the > catcher? I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know baseball rules, so I cannot comment on stealing bases. But your analogy is false, because baseball's policeman is a referee/umpire (I don't really know how is he named). And if he sees an infraction and doesn't react, it can cost the losing team fame and a lot of money. I could agree with you if bridge was only a simple card game played for fun, but it isn't, it is also a serious competition with money at stake. The best solution, especially on high level, would be providing a TD at every table to watch the game or provide cameras registering everything. Of course it is not applied because the costs would be too high, that's why poor TDs have to collect evidence, which is sometimes nearly impossible to collect, and that's why some infractions (and unfortunately cheating) are overlooked. We have to accept that, but I see no reason to accept deliberate inaction when the infraction is revealed. > That wasn't some "strange 'definition'" of "equity" in some bridge > sense, it was "equitable" in ordinary English, which the dictionary > defines in part as "impartial". It is not "impartial" for a director > to pick one table and enforce rules there that he would not, in > equivalent circumstances, enforce at some other table, even if only > because he can't watch all tables with equal attention simultaneously. Sorry, Eric, but that was not what you wrote. I'll quote you: "how can it be equitable for either pair to receive a different result...". You wrote *only* about pairs competing at the table at which the infraction got detected by a TD. The argument you are using now (field inequality) is known to me and has sense, the argument you used (maybe mistakenly) in your previous email was in my opinion absurd, because there is no equity for either side if one side fouls the other one and it is not redressed. Now to your present argument - as I have said, it is valid, but for me not decisive. I'm a follower of global perception - if justice is served at 10% of the tables, it is better than at 0% of them. Your "all or nothing" approach leads to 0%. I'm not stating that my view is necessarily better, only pointing out that we differ in understanding justice. > > Such reasoning would result in paranoia, because every player would > > have to > > be his own policeman, so he would have to thoroughly check the > > whole layout > > after the board, question every good defense of his opponents etc etc. > > Sorry, but it is impossible - there is usually not enough time to > > make full > > analysis between the boards/rounds and poorer players may lack > > knowledge to > > diagnose that they had been cheated. > > Anything "every player" would have to do would just as much have to > be done, otherwise, by every player except the ones at whose table > the director happened to be refereeing at the time. True. But I was only commenting on your perception of "equity" at the table, I understood it to mean that the NOS is at least partly guilty for not detecting the infraction. I disagree with this view, so in my opinion a TD should protect innocent players from harm caused by the infractors, no matter how he gets to know about it. > > Of course I know that the TDs cannot be everywhere, that some fouls > > have to > > remain overlooked. But that is no reason not to intervene when some > > of those > > fouls can be redressed. I'm certainly not advocating interrupting > > the board > > during the play (although I might support repairing the incorrect > > number of > > cards in any player's hand), but after the last trick is gone is a > > perfect > > time to correct any infractions that may be still corrected. I see > > nothing > > unfair or inequitable in doing just that. > > If it's a perfect time to correct any infractions, shouldn't the > director be proactive in correcting any infractions? Of course that > would mean checking for them and finding them. Why should he only > correct the ones he happened to see earlier? Because he is unable to check for them consistently. Again, a model situation would be a TD at every table, but it is too expensive, so we have to satisfy ourselves with imperfect solutions. If a TD has some free time and hears raised voices at any table he should in my opinion react. If he is busy, he can't, bad luck. > >> Unfortunately, that's exactly what, contrary to common sense, L81C3 > >> seems to call for. I wouldn't criticize a director who decided that > >> that unfortunate revoke he thought he might have seen in passing > >> really didn't register. > > > > I would demand his resignation - directors are not there to break > > the laws. > > Wouldn't you criticize a player who realizes he gave MI to his > > opponents, > > but fails to correct it because he's aware that this correction > > would result > > in getting a bottom (and "hurting" the mythical field) , whereas > > failing to > > correct results in something close to an average ("equity" supporters > > favourable result)? > > If you would demand his resignation, would you not, to be consistent, > have to demand as well the resignation of a director who sat at the > scoring table for the entire round, when he could have been wandering > the floor looking for infractions to correct? There is difference between searching for infractions to correct and correcting the infractions a TD gets to know about. The former is not required by the laws, the latter is. And whatever your opinion about the laws is, as long as they oblige a TD to do something, he simply *must* do it. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 19 00:26:47 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 17:26:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <499A6DAE.7070001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902181526g7cd85fb9wb56864ed750eb76b@mail.gmail.com> Henk, Richard Hills reposted his offensive characterizations, and even added similar tripe for good measure. I don't appreciate this. The frequency of this style from him continues to rise, and I don't think it contributes to BLML. Would you be willing to try again? Jerry Fusselman From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Feb 19 00:58:37 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:58:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> Message-ID: <000b01c99224$d0e16480$72a42d80$@com> [EL] A better analogy would be a policeman who walks past a baseball field and notices a runner about to steal second base. Should he warn the catcher? [DALB] Whereas this may be a better analogy for those who know the rules of baseball and understand the jargon of the game, I suspect that it might not work terribly well in, say, Poland. If a policeman observes that someone is in fact about to steal the bag at second base and run off with it, he may choose whether or not to warn the catcher, but he should certainly apprehend the thief. If on the other hand a policeman observes that a runner on first base is about to run to second base after the pitch has left the pitcher's hand but before it has been struck (or missed) by the batter, he may yell as loudly as any other spectator, but is under no moral obligation to do so. I should point out, for the benefit of any laymen who may have wandered in, that "stealing" a base is a perfectly legal manoeuvre at baseball, and does not violate any of the rules of that game. It is regrettable in the extreme, to my way of thinking, that the Laws of bridge oblige a director to rectify any irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner. Players themselves are not obliged to draw attention to irregularities; why should it be incumbent upon a director to intervene when he happens by chance to observe an irregularity? If we cannot have a director at every table, then in the interests of equity we should not have a director at any table unless he is summoned there by a player. David Burn London, England From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 19 01:24:39 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:24:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499CA6C7.3070100@aol.com> Thanks for the help. I understood that the double was a subset of the insuff. bid. Perhaps it is only a problem of language and formulation. Still it bothers me that the double gives more info than the insuff. bid did. The insuff. bid did not give any extra info but the replacement did and somehow this bothers me. Thanks for all of the answers, JE richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > John (MadDog) Probst: > >> Hmm, the English practice is to award A+. They were scheduled to >> play it and through no fault of their own ... I don't see any >> problem with the regulation, though I find it problematic that >> some boards are more equal than others. ie, all A+ or all >> "unplayed" who cares which? but not a mixture. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Ton's proposal to vary average plus is 50% > unLawful. Law 86A gives the Regulating Authority unfettered > power to change the default +3 imps at team play or similar, but > there is no such power granted to Regulating Authorities to > change the nature of the matchpoint pairs average plus. > > Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: > > "...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." > > This particular topic of multiple average pluses appeared in the > ACBL Laws Commission minutes well _before_ the current Laws were > finalised; the fact that no specific proposition a la Ton and the > ACBL was inserted into the new 2007 Law 12 suggests that the ACBL > representatives on the Drafting Committee had second thoughts > about the unintended consequences of the ACBL LC/Ton idea. > > > 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 19 01:34:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:34:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c991a9$e4837210$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: >+=+ I am not sure where it is suggested that the laws require >a claimer to claim all his available tricks. If a player claims >some number of tricks and concedes the remainder, no illegal play >being involved, and no player objects, what error is there that >calls for rectification by the director? Richard Hills: Indeed. Even Law 79A2 places no general obligation on the claimer's opponents when the claimer has conceded too many tricks; it merely places the special obligation on a wide-awake opponent not to "knowingly accept ... the concession of a trick that [the claimer] could not lose". And, of course, Law 79A2 says "A player must not knowingly accept", it does _not_ say "A player and/or the Director must not knowingly accept" Grattan Endicott: > If the full number of available tricks is only achievable via >a technical play beyond the capabilities of the claimer, are we to >understand that the director is to award him that full number by >way of rectification? Richard Hills: Only in very special circumstances. While playing her cards, Mrs Guggenheim finds the technical play of following suit beyond her capabilities, so she revokes on every other trick. But once Mrs Guggenheim claims, it is deemed irrational that her post-claim tricks would include any revokes, so Mrs Guggenheim should claim early and claim often. But apart from this special case, I believe that this is why "class of player" was retained in the claim Laws footnote, so I would expect unanimous support from other blmlers for this Grattanical point. Grattan Endicott: > Is it not the function of the director to verify that what >the claimer is saying is correct, rather than to judge that it >would be to his advantage to say something else? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: The Rueful Rabbit claims the extremely obvious 9 tricks in 3NT, since 99% of the time there are exactly 9 tricks in 3NT. The Director is sitting behind R.R.'s RHO Molly the Mule, so clearly sees a broad smile break out on the face her partner, Charlie the Chimp. The Chimp accepts the claim at the speed of light. Given the reputation of Charlie the Chimp, the Director's suspicions are aroused. So the Director casually wanders away from the table to inspect the computer-dealt hand record. Sure enough, the actual lie of the defenders' cards means that the 1% chance of 10 tricks being cold in 3NT has come up (no)trumps. Under the Grattanical interpretation of a Law 81C3 "error" the Director cannot simply award 10 tricks to the Rabbit; instead the Director must perform the much more difficult mind-reading task of determining if the Chimp "knowingly" infracted Law 79A2. Presumably the Law 85A1 "balance of probabilities" criterion would be used to assess the Chimp's state of mind. But would it be Lawful to toss into the scales of justice the Chimp's past history of infracting Laws whenever the Chimp thought he could get away with it? How would you rule? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Gampas at aol.com Thu Feb 19 01:51:56 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:51:56 EST Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) Message-ID: In a message dated 18/02/2009 18:18:29 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: The declarer in the original case was not on lead, had not been drawing trumps, said nothing to indicate that he was aware of the outstanding trump, and failed to indicate a subsequent line of play on which drawing the last trump would be normal (albeit not "normal"). [paul lamford] Others have argued that the line of play prior to the claim indicates that the declarer was not of a high standard. Indeed the casebook indicates that he was the lowest-ranked player at the table. However, we only have to consider the tests required by the Laws. We accept that he did not make a statement about the missing trump. How does one decide whether declarer was "at all likely" to have been unaware of the missing trump? Failing to draw it when on lead when it is normal to do so would be one indicator. Apart from that, only by getting inside the mind of the claimer. Let us say that I open Seven Spades on S AKQJT98 H AKQJT9 D None C None and dummy hits with five spades and nothing much else. I (without comment) claim on the opening minor suit lead and start wittering on about how this was the strongest hand I held etc. Of course the opponent, noticing that I have twelve spades, argues that it was "at all likely" that I could have been under the impression that I had 13 spades, and would play my hearts first. The problem with this is that it is always "at all likely" if you accept the burden of proof required by Gesta. In which case, as the AC said, why have the clause there if there is no requirement for the TD or AC to make that value judgement. And a value judgement it clearly is, not a question of fact. In the casebook example, East has reached a six-card ending where he has the five highest spades, and has seen (presumably) South show out on the second club. Even the weakest novice can tell that the only "normal" line is to ruff high and play the trumps from the top. Other parts of the claim law allow declarer to notice that someone has shown out, or to successfully take a finesse with Axxx opposite KQT9x if there is Jxxx underneath the KQT (but not if it is in the other hand, unless the safety play has been mentioned). Some level of basic ability (commensurate, I would agree, with the evidence of how competent the declarer is) is to be assumed. In the example, I would be more inclined to rule that it was "normal" to ruff high but not "normal" to ruff low, without having really to decide on whether declarer was "at all likely" to be aware of the missing trump. I believe that there is precedent which indicates that if East had been on lead, he would be assumed to play the trumps from the top, but play them last if there is a choice. That is very sensible, but in this example, East has only trumps and can ruff high however many (within reason) missing trumps there are or whichever ones he was "at all likely" to have been aware of or not. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 19 01:19:01 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 01:19:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? Message-ID: <499CA575.6040609@aol.com> For what it's worth:I agree with Sven, Marvin and Eric. And I think the analogies (policemen, etc.) are not helpful and really quite irrelevant. For years we (all TDs I know)n have had problems with ?81C3. There are obviously (in my opinion at least) situations in which a TD should not act although he has noticed something. Perhaps ?81C3 should be more exactly clarified. JE From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 19 02:22:23 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:22:23 +1100 Subject: [blml] Tempo-break [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499A910A.7020705@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: >It has always been my biggest problem in TFLB that *many* laws can't >be enforced. [indicative examples snipped] Richard Hills: For many of Alain's examples, when a player chooses to infract a Law which is difficult to enforce, it is easy for a player to get away with that intentional infraction the first time. But Agatha Christie wrote, "Murder is a habit." So almost always the pitcher goes to the well too often, an observable habit of the intentional infractor is detected by the Director, and a ten-year ban of the intentional infractor ensues. On the other hand, there is a Law which is easy to obey and easy to enforce which is often not obeyed and not enforced. Law 74A2: "A player should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Richard Hills: Many players do not realise that their (soon to be erstwhile) partner is included in the category "another player". Many Directors are likewise unaware of the full scope of Law 74A2. Ergo, many players engage in a full and frank critique of CHO while the Director resolutely looks the other way. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 19 02:38:35 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 20:38:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:34:13 -0500, wrote: > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ I am not sure where it is suggested that the laws require >> a claimer to claim all his available tricks. If a player claims >> some number of tricks and concedes the remainder, no illegal play >> being involved, and no player objects, what error is there that >> calls for rectification by the director? > > Richard Hills: > > Indeed. Even Law 79A2 places no general obligation on the claimer's > opponents when the claimer has conceded too many tricks; it merely > places the special obligation on a wide-awake opponent not to > "knowingly accept ... the concession of a trick that [the claimer] > could not lose". > > And, of course, Law 79A2 says "A player must not knowingly accept", > it does _not_ say "A player and/or the Director must not knowingly > accept" However, L712 says that the director shall cancel a concession if a player has conceded a trick that could not be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. So if there is some strange lay of the cards that allows declarer to make 1 more trick than claimed by any normal play, it is a director error to accept the claim as is. This seems to be an error in procedure hence L82A obligates the director to correct it. Which I believe was Richard's point. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Thu Feb 19 03:23:58 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 02:23:58 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c991e1$96612db0$c3238910$@no> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$796 45800$@no> <499B6813.9090304@talktalk.net> < 000601c991b2$b70ba650$2522f2f0$@no> <499BEFB2.9020308@talktalk.net> <499C140F.9050204@meteo.fr> <499C1FB1.6070509@talktalk.net> <000101c991e1$96612db0$c3238910$@no> Message-ID: <499CC2BE.6040708@talktalk.net> [Sven Pran] If you cannot understand the difference between the roles of a tournament director in bridge, a referee at football (or soccer) and a policeman observing a criminal act in progress I'm sorry but this discussion makes no sense. Bye [Nigel] Cheerio Sven :) I hope somebody else is prepared to address some of the central issues of this case: What is the law that allows the director to condone an infraction that he observes? In particular, a failure to follow suit is a minor infraction at worst, provided it is corrected early enough. If left uncorrected, it is likely to develop into a major infraction - an established revoke or multiple revokes. "Equity for the non-offending side is the table result" Sven writes that this is the correct ruling in the revoke case. I concede that such treatment for the innocent victim of an observed infraction accords with WBF "Equity". IMO, however, it is incompatible with any normal concept of justice. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 19 03:31:48 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:31:48 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499CA575.6040609@aol.com> Message-ID: A.J.P. Taylor (1906-1990), British historian: "The First World had begun - imposed on the statesmen of Europe by railway timetables. It was an unexpected climax to the railway age." David Burn: [big snip] >>It is regrettable in the extreme, to my way of thinking, that the >>Laws of bridge oblige a director to rectify any irregularity of >>which he becomes aware in any manner. Players themselves are not >>obliged to draw attention to irregularities; why should it be >>incumbent upon a director to intervene when he happens by chance >>to observe an irregularity? If we cannot have a director at every >>table, then in the interests of equity we should not have a >>director at any table unless he is summoned there by a player. Jeff Easterson: >For what it's worth:I agree with Sven, Marvin and Eric. And I >think the analogies (policemen, etc.) are not helpful and really >quite irrelevant. > >For years we (all TDs I know) have had problems with L81C3. There >are obviously (in my opinion at least) situations in which a TD >should not act although he has noticed something. Perhaps L81C3 >should be more exactly clarified. JE Richard Hills: In my opinion David Burn has misanalysed Law 81C3, ignoring the word "normally" in its prologue. If most of the time the Director will "normally" rectify an irregularity that she is aware of, then some of the time the Director will "abnormally" decline to rectify a known irregularity. My $0.02 worth of indicative examples: (a) The Director notices that when she announced the move, a pair (Burn-Callaghan) infracted Law 8A1 by sitting at the wrong table. Rather than wait for DALB to summon her when the constraints of Law 15C might apply, the Director chooses to "normally" take immediate corrective action. (b) The Director is a Burn-Callaghan fan, so therefore she has memorised the Burn-Callaghan bidding system. While observing an auction of Burn-Callaghan, the Director notices that DALB has misexplained one of Callaghan's calls. Rather than take immediate corrective action, the Director chooses to "abnormally" wait for DALB to use Law 20F4 or for Callaghan to use Law 20F5. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 19 03:43:50 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:43:50 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick suggested: [snip] >L82A obligates the director to correct it. Which I believe was >Richard's point. Law 82A: "It is the responsibility of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws." Socrates asks: But is claiming too few tricks not an "error of procedure" but instead merely stupid? Richard Hills notes: The situation is more clearcut for infractions which (unlike claims or concessions) can be rectified via a Law 12 adjusted score. Law 12A prologue: "On the application of a player within the period established under Law 92B ***or on his own initiative*** the Director may award an adjusted score when these Laws empower him to do so (in team play see Law 86). This includes:" Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 19 04:32:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:32:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Richard Hills asserted: >>In my opinion David Burn has misanalysed Law 81C3, ignoring the >>word "normally" in its prologue. If most of the time the Director >>will "normally" rectify an irregularity that she is aware of, then >>some of the time the Director will "abnormally" decline to rectify >>a known irregularity. In a private email, a blmler suggested: >I think you are misanalyzing "normally". It should refer to that >the director normally has these powers and duties. Richard Hills unasserts: Good point. The Law 81C word "normally" could merely be a reference to delegation of powers and duties under Law 81D: "The Director may delegate any of his duties to assistants, but he is not thereby relieved of responsibility for their correct performance." Since the relevant phrasing of C and D is more or less unchanged from Kaplanic times, "normally" could be another example of Edgar's nuanced but over-succinct use of the English language. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Feb 19 06:57:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:57:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] B.J. Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Richard Hills: B.J. Becker was an excellent judge of conventions, refusing to use most of them unless and until his careful assessment of them demonstrated that their advantages outweighed their disadvantages and unintended consequences. For example, B.J. Becker was the last major American expert to adopt the Stayman convention. On the other hand, when Dave Cliff invented splinter bids in the early 1960s, B.J. Becker was an enthusiastic early adopter, with his expert partnerships using many more splinter bids than were included in the 1994 version of Bridge World Standard (which had many). Perhaps this was because the function of a splinter bid is to improve pard's hand evaluation, rather than the more arbitrary purposes many other conventions have (e.g. the Keri convention). B.J. Becker was also a highly effective Chair of his local Conduct and Ethics Committee, because he never convened a committee meeting. Instead B.J. Becker's technique was to have a quiet private word with the offender, with the result that the offender never again perpetrated a conduct or ethics infraction. Jean-Jacques wrote: [big snip] >On the other hand, a PP against NS because of a breach of >L74something for untolerable lawyering seems much more in >order (I could be talked into a mere warning, though)... WBF Code of Practice, page 6: "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism." Richard Hills: On the other hand, if some of my recent blml postings had been conversations at the bridge table, I would indeed have grossly infracted Law 74something: "A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or might interfere with the enjoyment of the posts." I therefore apologise to Herman De Wael for casting aspersions on his intellect and integrity, and also apologise to Jerry Fusselman for my annoying attempts at humour. In future I will be careful to keep my humorous asides both incidental to my postings on the Laws, and also mostly self- deprecating. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 18 09:16:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:16:04 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499BC3C4.80608@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > John (MadDog) Probst: > >> Hmm, the English practice is to award A+. They were scheduled to >> play it and through no fault of their own ... I don't see any >> problem with the regulation, though I find it problematic that >> some boards are more equal than others. ie, all A+ or all >> "unplayed" who cares which? but not a mixture. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion, Ton's proposal to vary average plus is 50% > unLawful. Law 86A gives the Regulating Authority unfettered > power to change the default +3 imps at team play or similar, but > there is no such power granted to Regulating Authorities to > change the nature of the matchpoint pairs average plus. > In my opinion, Richard is wrong. Ton is not talking about what to give when awarding A+, but about when to award A+. Law 86A has nothing to do with that question. Does Richard award A+ when a pair is bye? Herman. From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Thu Feb 19 12:19:03 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:19:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499CA6C7.3070100@aol.com> Message-ID: > > Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: > > "...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." > > This particular topic of multiple average pluses appeared in the ACBL > Laws Commission minutes well _before_ the current Laws were finalised; > the fact that no specific proposition a la Ton and the ACBL was > inserted into the new 2007 Law 12 suggests that the ACBL > representatives on the Drafting Committee had second thoughts about > the unintended consequences of the ACBL LC/Ton idea. > > > Best wishes ton: Your assumption that anything not changed had been pondered on and then considered to be superior sounds flattering. You are right there must be a basis in the laws to regulate the maximum number of artificial scores. In my opinion Law 78D offers tha posibility. The reason to do this proposal comes from Lille (I had prefered not to talk about it again)where due to a mistake in the movement some pairs could not play 8 boards (4 opponents). We decided there that giving 8 times 60% was impossible if you know that the winning percentage for that 5 session final can be estimated to be around 54%. That decision can also be justified by the approach that at the start of the last session players knew not to meet some pairs, so no score. ton From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Feb 19 12:44:57 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:44:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] B.J. Becker [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <499D4639.3030006@aol.com> I enjoy Richard's humour (attempts at humour??) and would regret not seeing it on blml in the future. JE richard.hills at immi.gov.au schrieb: > Richard Hills: > > B.J. Becker was an excellent judge of conventions, refusing > to use most of them unless and until his careful assessment > of them demonstrated that their advantages outweighed their > disadvantages and unintended consequences. For example, B.J. > Becker was the last major American expert to adopt the > Stayman convention. > > On the other hand, when Dave Cliff invented splinter bids in > the early 1960s, B.J. Becker was an enthusiastic early > adopter, with his expert partnerships using many more > splinter bids than were included in the 1994 version of > Bridge World Standard (which had many). Perhaps this was > because the function of a splinter bid is to improve pard's > hand evaluation, rather than the more arbitrary purposes > many other conventions have (e.g. the Keri convention). > > B.J. Becker was also a highly effective Chair of his local > Conduct and Ethics Committee, because he never convened a > committee meeting. Instead B.J. Becker's technique was to > have a quiet private word with the offender, with the result > that the offender never again perpetrated a conduct or ethics > infraction. > > Jean-Jacques wrote: > > [big snip] > >> On the other hand, a PP against NS because of a breach of >> L74something for untolerable lawyering seems much more in >> order (I could be talked into a mere warning, though)... > > WBF Code of Practice, page 6: > > "A contestant may be penalized only for a lapse of ethics > where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in > respect of conduct. A player who has conformed to the laws > and regulations is not subject to criticism." > > Richard Hills: > > On the other hand, if some of my recent blml postings had > been conversations at the bridge table, I would indeed have > grossly infracted Law 74something: > > "A blmler should carefully avoid any remark or action that > might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another blmler or > might interfere with the enjoyment of the posts." > > I therefore apologise to Herman De Wael for casting aspersions > on his intellect and integrity, and also apologise to Jerry > Fusselman for my annoying attempts at humour. > > In future I will be careful to keep my humorous asides both > incidental to my postings on the Laws, and also mostly self- > deprecating. > > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 > Telephone: 02 6223 8453 > Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise > the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, > including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged > and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination > or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the > intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has > obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy > policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 19 15:54:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 09:54:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no><1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net><006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <6D133E53-1682-4A3B-87D2-679139528249@starpower.net> On Feb 18, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Bystry wrote: >>> I don't want to engage in this whole discussion yet, but that >>> statement (and >>> strange "definition" of equity) drew my attention. >>> >>> First an analogy - a policeman comes back home after the work hours >>> and sees >>> a thief trying to steal your car. Should he intervene or do nothing >>> reasoning that he is there accidentally and it would be unfair to >>> the thief >>> (?) and all other Eric's (who had their cars stolen)? >> >> Bridge isn't real life, and stealing cars isn't playing a a game. A >> better analogy would be a policeman who walks past a baseball field >> and notices a runner about to steal second base. Should he warn the >> catcher? > > I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know baseball rules, so I cannot > comment on > stealing bases. But your analogy is false, because baseball's > policeman is a > referee/umpire (I don't really know how is he named). And if he > sees an > infraction and doesn't react, it can cost the losing team fame and > a lot of > money. I could agree with you if bridge was only a simple card game > played > for fun, but it isn't, it is also a serious competition with money > at stake. > The best solution, especially on high level, would be providing a > TD at > every table to watch the game or provide cameras registering > everything. Of > course it is not applied because the costs would be too high, > that's why > poor TDs have to collect evidence, which is sometimes nearly > impossible to > collect, and that's why some infractions (and unfortunately > cheating) are > overlooked. We have to accept that, but I see no reason to accept > deliberate > inaction when the infraction is revealed. > >> That wasn't some "strange 'definition'" of "equity" in some bridge >> sense, it was "equitable" in ordinary English, which the dictionary >> defines in part as "impartial". It is not "impartial" for a director >> to pick one table and enforce rules there that he would not, in >> equivalent circumstances, enforce at some other table, even if only >> because he can't watch all tables with equal attention >> simultaneously. > > Sorry, Eric, but that was not what you wrote. I'll quote you: "how > can it be > equitable for either pair to receive a different result...". You wrote > *only* about pairs competing at the table at which the infraction got > detected by a TD. The argument you are using now (field inequality) > is known > to me and has sense, the argument you used (maybe mistakenly) in your > previous email was in my opinion absurd, because there is no equity > for > either side if one side fouls the other one and it is not redressed. > > Now to your present argument - as I have said, it is valid, but for > me not > decisive. I'm a follower of global perception - if justice is > served at 10% > of the tables, it is better than at 0% of them. Your "all or nothing" > approach leads to 0%. I'm not stating that my view is necessarily > better, > only pointing out that we differ in understanding justice. > >>> Such reasoning would result in paranoia, because every player would >>> have to >>> be his own policeman, so he would have to thoroughly check the >>> whole layout >>> after the board, question every good defense of his opponents etc >>> etc. >>> Sorry, but it is impossible - there is usually not enough time to >>> make full >>> analysis between the boards/rounds and poorer players may lack >>> knowledge to >>> diagnose that they had been cheated. >> >> Anything "every player" would have to do would just as much have to >> be done, otherwise, by every player except the ones at whose table >> the director happened to be refereeing at the time. > > True. But I was only commenting on your perception of "equity" at > the table, > I understood it to mean that the NOS is at least partly guilty for not > detecting the infraction. I disagree with this view, so in my > opinion a TD > should protect innocent players from harm caused by the infractors, no > matter how he gets to know about it. > >>> Of course I know that the TDs cannot be everywhere, that some fouls >>> have to >>> remain overlooked. But that is no reason not to intervene when some >>> of those >>> fouls can be redressed. I'm certainly not advocating interrupting >>> the board >>> during the play (although I might support repairing the incorrect >>> number of >>> cards in any player's hand), but after the last trick is gone is a >>> perfect >>> time to correct any infractions that may be still corrected. I see >>> nothing >>> unfair or inequitable in doing just that. >> >> If it's a perfect time to correct any infractions, shouldn't the >> director be proactive in correcting any infractions? Of course that >> would mean checking for them and finding them. Why should he only >> correct the ones he happened to see earlier? > > Because he is unable to check for them consistently. Again, a model > situation would be a TD at every table, but it is too expensive, so > we have > to satisfy ourselves with imperfect solutions. If a TD has some > free time > and hears raised voices at any table he should in my opinion react. > If he is > busy, he can't, bad luck. Perhaps that would be a model situation -- Maciej makes a good case, at least for high-level competition -- but it would be a very different game. Even if we believe that it would be a far better game, though, that doesn't make it a good idea to have that game played at one table while the rest of the room plays the game we're familiar with. Imagine a director spending a session kibitzing one table, rectifying any "error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner" [L81C3]. I'd argue that the playing conditions at that table would be so different from those at the other tables in the room that the scores could not be validly compared. >>>> Unfortunately, that's exactly what, contrary to common sense, L81C3 >>>> seems to call for. I wouldn't criticize a director who decided >>>> that >>>> that unfortunate revoke he thought he might have seen in passing >>>> really didn't register. >>> >>> I would demand his resignation - directors are not there to break >>> the laws. >>> Wouldn't you criticize a player who realizes he gave MI to his >>> opponents, >>> but fails to correct it because he's aware that this correction >>> would result >>> in getting a bottom (and "hurting" the mythical field) , whereas >>> failing to >>> correct results in something close to an average ("equity" >>> supporters >>> favourable result)? >> >> If you would demand his resignation, would you not, to be consistent, >> have to demand as well the resignation of a director who sat at the >> scoring table for the entire round, when he could have been wandering >> the floor looking for infractions to correct? > > There is difference between searching for infractions to correct and > correcting the infractions a TD gets to know about. The former is not > required by the laws, the latter is. And whatever your opinion > about the > laws is, as long as they oblige a TD to do something, he simply > *must* do > it. I agree, and when I put my TD hat on, I follow the law. But I do not go out of my way to find situations in which to intervene without being asked. To the point that, when I notice some situation that looks like it might call for my uninvited intervention, I find something else to occupy my attention. Admittedly, I do not wear my TD hat in anything like high-level competition. My players have it drilled into them that if they have any concern about just about anything, they should call the director. In general they do. When they don't, they do not expect it to be done for them, and would not consider it a favor, or even a well-intentioned act. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Feb 19 16:15:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just for the record... On Feb 18, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > I believe that there is precedent which indicates > that if East had been on lead, he would be assumed to play the > trumps from > the top, True. That even appears as an example of an appropriate specification by the RA (L70E2), and has been accepted by the ACBL and, I believe, most others, if perhaps not all. > but play them last if there is a choice. False. That is the oft-expressed opinion by a minority (of one, actually) of members of this forum, but has not been adopted (or even, AFAIK, taken seriously) by any valid authority. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 19 17:27:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:27:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <4989FA9D0BC95F7B@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added by postmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) Message-ID: <002a01c992af$420adcb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> >> Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: >> >> "...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." >> >> This particular topic of multiple average pluses appeared in the ACBL >> Laws Commission minutes well _before_ the current Laws were finalised; >> the fact that no specific proposition a la Ton and the ACBL was >> inserted into the new 2007 Law 12 suggests that the ACBL >> representatives on the Drafting Committee had second thoughts about >> the unintended consequences of the ACBL LC/Ton idea. >> >> >> Best wishes > > ton: > > Your assumption that anything not changed had been pondered on and then > considered to be superior sounds flattering. > > You are right there must be a basis in the laws to regulate the maximum > number of artificial scores. In my opinion Law 78D offers that > possibility. > The reason to do this proposal comes from Lille (I had preferred not to > talk about it again)where due to a mistake in the movement some pairs > could not play 8 boards (4 opponents). We decided there that giving 8 > times 60% was impossible if you know that the winning percentage for > that 5 session final can be estimated to be around 54%. > That decision can also be justified by the approach that at the start of > the last session players knew not to meet some pairs, so no score. > > ton > +=+ I am comfortable with the fact that Law 12C2(a) does not apply in the case of a situation such as arose in that unmentionable place. An error in the movement falls within the category of Director's errors, even if it was foisted upon him by incompetent back-room staff, and the WBFLC minute of 30th October 2001 is still applicable, viz:- "The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a Director may be an error but this does not constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws." In my opinion the Regulating Authority has powers under Laws 78D and 80B to make provision in conditions of entry for a situation such as that, and the Director has his Law 81B1 powers. I tend to feel that the player's own average on boards played is nearest to an equitable award but I am not confident that any solution is perfect. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From darkbystry at wp.pl Thu Feb 19 18:04:43 2009 From: darkbystry at wp.pl (Bystry) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:04:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no><1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net><006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl><100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net><000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> <6D133E53-1682-4A3B-87D2-679139528249@starpower.net> Message-ID: <001701c992b4$2984afe0$15844c59@chello.pl> > Imagine a director spending a session kibitzing one table, rectifying > any "error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any > manner" [L81C3]. I'd argue that the playing conditions at that table > would be so different from those at the other tables in the room that > the scores could not be validly compared. I'm not sure whether a TD should kibitz to this extent at all. Of course in club bridge anything goes and I have nothing against, but in more serious competition it could put the players and a TD in an ambigous situation. Anyway, in Poland TDs generally do not have time to kibitz (we do not have separate scorers and try to employ the least TDs the possible to run the tournament). > I agree, and when I put my TD hat on, I follow the law. But I do not > go out of my way to find situations in which to intervene without > being asked. To the point that, when I notice some situation that > looks like it might call for my uninvited intervention, I find > something else to occupy my attention. I really don't have any strong feelings on this topic, for me its importance is at most marginal. I was surprised by your unfortunate use of the word "equitable" and by your proposed approach to TD work and that's the only reason I wrote anything about it. You are right that the players usually do not wish a TD putting his nose when he is not called, although I maintain that such intervention could be appropriate when the level of aggravation at the table is too high. Excluding such situations active search for infractions is certainly not needed and usually not possible anyway. My support for present laws (forcing TDs to cope with irregularities they know about) is mainly caused by another type of problems which can be broadly defined as cheating - the players have no real chance to detect deliberate illegal transmition of UI, deliberate failing to correct a revoke in time etc, only kibitzers and observant TDs are able to do anything. I believe that the TDs should have a formal motivant, otherwise some of them could fail to resist the temptation to stay out of trouble. > Eric Landau > 1107 Dale Drive > Silver Spring MD 20910 > ehaa at starpower.net Regards Maciej From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 20 03:41:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:41:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <6D133E53-1682-4A3B-87D2-679139528249@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau: I agree, and when I put my TD hat on, I follow the law. But I do not go out of my way to find situations in which to intervene without being asked. To the point that, when I notice some situation that looks like it might call for my uninvited intervention, I find something else to occupy my attention. Admittedly, I do not wear my TD hat in anything like high-level competition. [snip] John (MadDog) Probst, 27th April 2005: >>............ >>English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on >>screen (I usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in >>scratching my back on the top corner of the screen). Overheard >>at the table, all players knew I was there. >> >>"Was it down one or two?" >>"No idea, how about -75?" >>"TD won't like it. Toss you for it" >> >>"Down two, ok" >>"Yes" Sven Pran, 28th April 2005: >And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) > >Regards Sven 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 Feb 20 06:10:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:10:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Boston Non-NABC+ case 3 (claiming) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001a01c991a9$e434b5d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott: +=+ I do not know the case. However, prima facie when a claim is made without mentioning an outstanding trump the claimer is unaware of it. Normally it is for the claimer to produce evidence that he was unquestionably The Appeal: Statements made by the appealing side: Declarer said when dummy went down he noted he had ten trump. He led one round with all following, which left one outstanding. When asked why he did not mention it, he said it was so obvious it didn't merit a mention. Grattan Endicott: aware of the trump. The words '*at all* likely' are key and the evidence should be irrefutable. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Paul Lamford: I agree with the panel's ruling, and Adam expresses it very well. In every case the TD or AC just has to decide whether it was at all likely that the declarer was unaware of the missing trump. They decided in this case that it was not "at all likely". A simple value judgement, whether you agree with or not; [snip] Grattan Endicott: +=+ I disagree with the suggestion that this is a value judgement. The question is one of fact. The standard of proof required under Law 70C2 is high, indeed I would say absolute since minimal doubt establishes some degree of likelihood and the law says that the opponents *shall* then be awarded a trick or tricks. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes: "I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all." Here it is in modern English: "Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account." Richard Hills: Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that "a priori" there is a small chance, commensurate with the innate capacity of declarer, that he counted to 12 instead of 13, so when "a posteriori" declarer failed to mention the missing trump a considerable element of the unpredictable belief that the defenders' trumps broke 1-1 (rather than the actual 2-1 break) must invariably be taken into account. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 20 07:05:45 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:05:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Request for record keeping help Message-ID: <694eadd40902192205n7ec852b7i48a0fbcec9571ec7@mail.gmail.com> As chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee I've started a project to compile a database of our decisions over the past decade or so. Several NAC members have volunteered to help. We're tracking things like who served, who appeared, whether the AC's ruling was different than the TD's, and the category of the case. We're more than half way through, but things are proceeding more slowly than I'd like. I'm hoping some BLML members will chip in. In exchange you'll get my thanks and an early look at the database. Each case takes a few minutes to enter, transcribing the particulars from a casebook to an online form. You can see a copy of the form here: http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cFpKZXNuRHpnVWc2cnhTcTVQWUpZQ3c6MA.. If you'd like to help please drop me a line and I'll assign you a casebook. Why are we doing this? Metrics. I'm taking to heart Lord Kelvin's maxim, "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Feb 20 07:24:35 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:24:35 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) Message-ID: L12C1(e): In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all or part of the following procedure in place of (c): (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. [PERIOD!] A while back on BLML, Adam Wildavsky argued that the phrase "had the irregularity not occurred" should be understood for the offenders. The WBFLC strongly rejected this interpretation in its Montreal meeting August 27 2002: The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put his view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "for a non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred or, for the offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable *had the irregularity not occurred*". It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason to reconsider that decision. So, it did not get into the 2007 Laws. Or did it? The ACBL version of the Laws has Adam's language incorporated. The Regulating Authority may apply "all or part of the following..." That's all or part, with no election authorized for any addition to the language. We can't have RAs creating new laws. What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. The lawmakers could have made this more clear by adding "in any case" to (ii). The ACBL should be instructed by the WBF to issue an erratum correcting the language in its edition and to fix it in future printings. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From schoderb at msn.com Thu Feb 19 17:42:55 2009 From: schoderb at msn.com (WILLIAM SCHODER) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:42:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4989FA9D0BC95F7B@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) <002a01c992af$420adcb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <4989FA9D0BC95F7B@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) <002a01c992af$420adcb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: thank you Grattan. I thought we had put this baby to bed along time ago, but as with so many other things there would be less to posture about and "interpret" on BLML if it simply accepted what is the workable situation. Kojak ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:27 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Grattan Endicott also ************************************ "..... the marble eyelids are not wet If it could weep it could arise and go." ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) "When there are no tears in the eyes the pain is inside" (Child sitting in the rubble of her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "ton" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >> >> Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: >> >> "...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." >> >> This particular topic of multiple average pluses appeared in the ACBL >> Laws Commission minutes well _before_ the current Laws were finalised; >> the fact that no specific proposition a la Ton and the ACBL was >> inserted into the new 2007 Law 12 suggests that the ACBL >> representatives on the Drafting Committee had second thoughts about >> the unintended consequences of the ACBL LC/Ton idea. >> >> >> Best wishes > > ton: > > Your assumption that anything not changed had been pondered on and then > considered to be superior sounds flattering. > > You are right there must be a basis in the laws to regulate the maximum > number of artificial scores. In my opinion Law 78D offers that > possibility. > The reason to do this proposal comes from Lille (I had preferred not to > talk about it again)where due to a mistake in the movement some pairs > could not play 8 boards (4 opponents). We decided there that giving 8 > times 60% was impossible if you know that the winning percentage for > that 5 session final can be estimated to be around 54%. > That decision can also be justified by the approach that at the start of > the last session players knew not to meet some pairs, so no score. > > ton > +=+ I am comfortable with the fact that Law 12C2(a) does not apply in the case of a situation such as arose in that unmentionable place. An error in the movement falls within the category of Director's errors, even if it was foisted upon him by incompetent back-room staff, and the WBFLC minute of 30th October 2001 is still applicable, viz:- "The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a Director may be an error but this does not constitute an 'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws." In my opinion the Regulating Authority has powers under Laws 78D and 80B to make provision in conditions of entry for a situation such as that, and the Director has his Law 81B1 powers. I tend to feel that the player's own average on boards played is nearest to an equitable award but I am not confident that any solution is perfect. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090219/95366dd5/attachment.htm From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 20 10:05:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:05:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: Message-ID: <006101c9933b$73204ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:24 AM Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) > L12C1(e): In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all > or part of the following procedure in place of (c): > > (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a > non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred. > (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable. [PERIOD!] > > A while back on BLML, Adam Wildavsky argued that the phrase "had the > irregularity not occurred" should be understood for the offenders. > The WBFLC strongly rejected this interpretation in its Montreal > meeting August 27 2002: > > The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put his > view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "for a > non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred or, for the offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable *had the irregularity > not occurred*". It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that > on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the > Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to > the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason > to reconsider that decision. > > So, it did not get into the 2007 Laws. Or did it? The ACBL version > of the Laws has Adam's language incorporated. The Regulating > Authority may apply "all or part of the following..." That's all or > part, with no election authorized for any addition to the language. > We can't have RAs creating new laws. > > What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: > > Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long > hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push > and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would > quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is > adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders > get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. > > The lawmakers could have made this more clear by adding "in any > case" to (ii). > > The ACBL should be instructed by the WBF to issue an erratum > correcting the language in its edition and to fix it in future > printings. > > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 20 10:25:24 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:25:24 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4989FA9D0BC95F7B@mail-7-uk.mail.tiscali.sys> (added bypostmaster@mail-7.uk.tiscali.com) <002a01c992af$420adcb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <499E7704.5010402@skynet.be> WILLIAM SCHODER wrote: > thank you Grattan. I thought we had put this baby to bed along time > ago, but as with so many other things there would be less to posture > about and "interpret" on BLML if it simply accepted what is the workable > situation. > Kojak > A sensible thought, Kojak, but I fear the culprit is not blml, but the WBF. If the WBF were to write complete sets of regulations, offering the RAs and ultimately the clubs the opportunity of taking them up completely (while leaving them the authority to change what they find should be changed), then discussions like these become less opportune. But the WBF has decided, IMO wrongly, to issue regulations for each and every tournament separately. I believe that was a wrong move. For one thing, it makes the tournament organisers focus on the same things every time again, leaving them no time to write down less frequent problems, like the one Ton discusses. If the WBF were to write a document detailing all the subtleties of the counting process, such a document might be refined through history, but need not be rewritten every single time. Also, the WBF does not even have regulations covering all things. The Lille happenings resulted in a number of decisions by the WBF, that were not supported by previously written regulations. Making it up as we go along is not really the way to go. FWIW, I offer to compile a document on the counting process, for WBF submission. Herman. > ----- Original Message ----- > > *From:* Grattan > *To:* Bridge Laws Mailing List > *Sent:* Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:27 AM > *Subject:* Re: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > Grattan Endicott > also > ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "ton" > > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 11:19 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > > > >> > >> Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: > >> > >> "...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." > >> > >> This particular topic of multiple average pluses appeared in the > ACBL > >> Laws Commission minutes well _before_ the current Laws were > finalised; > >> the fact that no specific proposition a la Ton and the ACBL was > >> inserted into the new 2007 Law 12 suggests that the ACBL > >> representatives on the Drafting Committee had second thoughts about > >> the unintended consequences of the ACBL LC/Ton idea. > >> > >> > >> Best wishes > > > > ton: > > > > Your assumption that anything not changed had been pondered on > and then > > considered to be superior sounds flattering. > > > > You are right there must be a basis in the laws to regulate the > maximum > > number of artificial scores. In my opinion Law 78D offers that > > possibility. > > The reason to do this proposal comes from Lille (I had preferred > not to > > talk about it again)where due to a mistake in the movement some pairs > > could not play 8 boards (4 opponents). We decided there that giving 8 > > times 60% was impossible if you know that the winning percentage for > > that 5 session final can be estimated to be around 54%. > > That decision can also be justified by the approach that at the > start of > > the last session players knew not to meet some pairs, so no score. > > > > ton > > > +=+ I am comfortable with the fact that Law 12C2(a) does not apply > in the case of a situation such as arose in that unmentionable > place. An > error in the movement falls within the category of Director's > errors, even > if it was foisted upon him by incompetent back-room staff, and the > WBFLC minute of 30th October 2001 is still applicable, viz:- > "The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the > laws > refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a Director > may be an error but this does not constitute an 'irregularity' > within the > meaning of the laws." > In my opinion the Regulating Authority has powers under Laws 78D > and 80B to make provision in conditions of entry for a situation such as > that, and the Director has his Law 81B1 powers. I tend to feel that the > player's own average on boards played is nearest to an equitable award > but I am not confident that any solution is perfect. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 henk at ripe.net Fri Feb 20 11:48:19 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 11:48:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A Message-ID: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> Hi all, Yesterday at the club, I'm called with this auction on the table: West North East South -- 1 D X Pass, 3C 1 S Director! When asked what happened, south said that she wanted to bid 3C as Weak Jump Shift. She thought she pulled out the stop card, then reached for the 3C card. When she wanted to put that on the table, she noticed a green instead of a red card. South does indeed have a hand that qualifies for a WJS. West stated that south took a few seconds before reaching for her bidding box. During that time, west decided to bid one spade if south passed. When she saw the green card, she made the planned bid. Question 1: Now what? I ruled that south was allowed to change her bid into 3C. The auction continued: West North East South -- 1 D X 3C Pass Pass ?? At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? 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 svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 20 13:34:28 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:34:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > Hi all, > > Yesterday at the club, I'm called with this auction on the table: > > West North East South > -- 1 D X Pass, 3C > 1 S Director! > > When asked what happened, south said that she wanted to bid 3C as Weak > Jump Shift. She thought she pulled out the stop card, then reached for > the 3C card. When she wanted to put that on the table, she noticed a > green instead of a red card. South does indeed have a hand that > qualifies for a WJS. I certainly do hope that you didn't inspect South's hand to aid you determine if this was a law 25A case? > West stated that south took a few seconds before reaching for her bidding > box. During that time, west decided to bid one spade if south passed. > When she saw the green card, she made the planned bid. > > Question 1: Now what? The number of seconds between the pass (alleged stop) and the 3C bid is immaterial as long as South's actions and manner did not indicate a change of his mind. > > I ruled that south was allowed to change her bid into 3C. The auction > continued: Seems correct to me. > > West North East South > -- 1 D X 3C > Pass Pass ?? > > At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. > > Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? Law 25A4: "If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side. There is no further rectification." So the withdrawn 1S bid is AI for both East and West and UI for both North and South. Regards Sven From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Fri Feb 20 13:32:32 2009 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:32:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25A References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D08EC43@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Henk > Question 1: Now what? Its not clear if 1S was bid before the 3C correction, but it may not be relevant. 3C is allowed by Law 25A1. Law 25A4 allows LHO to "withdraw any call he made over the first call". This seems to apply to 1S regardless to when 3C occurred. So 1S is withdrawn. There is no further rectification. > Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? Law 25A4 "Information from the withdrawn call is authorised only for his side." 1S is authorised for East and unauthorised for North/South. Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090220/6e96b914/attachment.htm From henk at ripe.net Fri Feb 20 14:07:26 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:07:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> Message-ID: <499EAB0E.90207@ripe.net> Sven Pran wrote: > I certainly do hope that you didn't inspect South's hand to aid you > determine if this was a law 25A case? That wasn't necessary :-) I had played the board earlier that evening so I knew the hand. (And thanks for the answer). 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 agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 20 14:25:25 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:25:25 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> Message-ID: <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > >> Hi all, >> >> Yesterday at the club, I'm called with this auction on the table: >> >> West North East South >> -- 1 D X Pass, 3C >> 1 S Director! >> >> When asked what happened, south said that she wanted to bid 3C as Weak >> Jump Shift. She thought she pulled out the stop card, then reached for >> the 3C card. When she wanted to put that on the table, she noticed a >> green instead of a red card. South does indeed have a hand that >> qualifies for a WJS. >> > > I certainly do hope that you didn't inspect South's hand to aid you > determine if this was a law 25A case? > AG : why not ? The Laws ask us to decide whether South's claim that he didn't want to pass, and made a mechanical error, corresponds to the truth. Isn't South's hand an important reference for this purpose ? Don't we have to decide on basis of likelihood anymore ? Would you have accepted his claim if he held 3334 ? Examination is strongly discouraged when you have to ascertain whether a bid had any LA, because agreeing with the bid would transmit even more UI, but here it isn't the case. > >> West North East South >> -- 1 D X 3C >> Pass Pass ?? >> >> At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. >> >> Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? >> > > Law 25A4: "If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he > made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized > only to his side. There is no further rectification." > > So the withdrawn 1S bid is AI for both East and West and UI for both North > and South. > AG : it indeed looks like East is fully entitled to take ths into account and bid 3S on a 4-card suit, and South has to live with his error (lack of attention at least).. But it sounds unfair. Apart from that, the timing was important in one respect at least. If the retraction took only 2-3 seconds, and if the 1S bid came in a split second, I could deem West's bid not to conform to normal tempo, and decide that his haste is UI. I was a party in a similar, recent case : North opened 1C, not alerted. I overcalled 1S (on KJ10xxx - KJ9x - x - Qx) in normal tempo. Then came the alert (1C was 1-round force). Over such an opening, we play multi-like overcalls, and my hand called for a 1NT overcall (6 clubs, or 6 diamonds, or 5 spades and 4 hearts). This is very difficult to handle, but they both knew which version I held. OK, the information from my 1S bid was UI to them ; but how would the TD ascertain what the probability was that they would have a mixup after the ambiguous overcall ? In my experience, at this level (Belgian First Division, which is tier 2), they're hampered about 50% of the times and have a mixup about 10% of the time. I was deprived of this chance. What should the TD decide ? IRL, the deal had a happy ending for the NOS. I decided to change my bid to 2S (8-11 HCP), which wasn't available over a natural 1C, and they had the hoped-for bidding problem. Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Fri Feb 20 16:01:27 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:27 +0200 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> Message-ID: <499EC5C7.8020303@jldata.fi> Fairly clear, but If East bids 3 s, what means UI from one spade bid for NS. Is the information that East can bid 3 s with only 4 card spade UI or AI. If UI, NS must base their bidding and defence on assumption that East has rather strong hand and long spades. Best regards Juuso Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Henk Uijterwaal > >> Hi all, >> >> Yesterday at the club, I'm called with this auction on the table: >> >> West North East South >> -- 1 D X Pass, 3C >> 1 S Director! >> >> When asked what happened, south said that she wanted to bid 3C as Weak >> Jump Shift. She thought she pulled out the stop card, then reached for >> the 3C card. When she wanted to put that on the table, she noticed a >> green instead of a red card. South does indeed have a hand that >> qualifies for a WJS. >> > > I certainly do hope that you didn't inspect South's hand to aid you > determine if this was a law 25A case? > > >> West stated that south took a few seconds before reaching for her bidding >> box. During that time, west decided to bid one spade if south passed. >> When she saw the green card, she made the planned bid. >> >> Question 1: Now what? >> > > The number of seconds between the pass (alleged stop) and the 3C bid is > immaterial as long as South's actions and manner did not indicate a change > of his mind. > > >> I ruled that south was allowed to change her bid into 3C. The auction >> continued: >> > > Seems correct to me. > > >> West North East South >> -- 1 D X 3C >> Pass Pass ?? >> >> At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. >> >> Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? >> > > Law 25A4: "If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he > made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized > only to his side. There is no further rectification." > > So the withdrawn 1S bid is AI for both East and West and UI for both North > and South. > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 20 17:01:06 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:01:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : ......... > > I certainly do hope that you didn't inspect South's hand to aid you > > determine if this was a law 25A case? > > > AG : why not ? The Laws ask us to decide whether South's claim that he > didn't want to pass, and made a mechanical error, corresponds to the > truth. Isn't South's hand an important reference for this purpose ? Sure it is, and when the director uses his knowledge of South's hand when making a ruling he gives opponents information about South's hand that they are not entitled to. So the director must base his ruling upon knowledge that doesn't disclose such information to opponents, and that is mainly knowledge about the behavior of South, how he apparently detected his mistake and how he then acted. > Don't we have to decide on basis of likelihood anymore ? Would you have > accepted his claim if he held 3334 ? If the manner in which the situation developed supports the assertion that South had made a purely mechanical error then absolutely yes. > Examination is strongly discouraged when you have to ascertain whether a > bid had any LA, because agreeing with the bid would transmit even more > UI, but here it isn't the case. WHY NOT ! ??? > > > > >> West North East South > >> -- 1 D X 3C > >> Pass Pass ?? > >> > >> At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. > >> > >> Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? > >> > > > > Law 25A4: "If a substitution is allowed the LHO may withdraw any call he > > made over the first call. Information from the withdrawn call is authorized > > only to his side. There is no further rectification." > > > > So the withdrawn 1S bid is AI for both East and West and UI for both North > > and South. > > > AG : it indeed looks like East is fully entitled to take ths into > account and bid 3S on a 4-card suit, and South has to live with his > error (lack of attention at least).. It doesn't look like - it is the law > But it sounds unfair. Why is it unfair? The side responsible for the irregularity may not use any information created as a direct result of this irregularity. The side not at all responsible is free to use all information. > > Apart from that, the timing was important in one respect at least. The timing is important in one single respect: To aid the director rule if there has been a change of mind or a plain mechanical error. > If > the retraction took only 2-3 seconds, and if the 1S bid came in a split > second, I could deem West's bid not to conform to normal tempo, and > decide that his haste is UI. If you at all think of ruling against West in this case you are considering what will be a severe TD error. > > I was a party in a similar, recent case : > > North opened 1C, not alerted. I overcalled 1S (on KJ10xxx - KJ9x - x - > Qx) in normal tempo. Then came the alert (1C was 1-round force). > Over such an opening, we play multi-like overcalls, and my hand called > for a 1NT overcall (6 clubs, or 6 diamonds, or 5 spades and 4 hearts). > This is very difficult to handle, but they both knew which version I held. > OK, the information from my 1S bid was UI to them ; but how would the TD > ascertain what the probability was that they would have a mixup after > the ambiguous overcall ? The probability of opponents having a mixup is completely irrelevant for the ruling. This is a plain and simple Law 21B case of misinformation and you were free to change you 1S call to whatever you wanted, except that you (as always) are not allowed to change it in a way agreed upon in your partnership understandings to apply only after irregularities like this unless opponents are alerted to the existence of such special understandings. > In my experience, at this level (Belgian First Division, which is tier > 2), they're hampered about 50% of the times and have a mixup about 10% > of the time. > I was deprived of this chance. >From what you have written you were deprived of absolutely nothing. > > What should the TD decide ? He should apply Law 21B. > IRL, the deal had a happy ending for the NOS. I decided to change my bid > to 2S (8-11 HCP), which wasn't available over a natural 1C, and they > had the hoped-for bidding problem. Did the 2S overcall have any systemic meaning in your partnership understanding, and if so were opponents properly informed by your partner and/or your system declaration? If your partner understood something from your 2S overcall that your opponents were not given the possibility to understand I would say that you came very close to cheating if not directly crossing that line. I certainly hope that this was not the case. Regards Sven. From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 20 17:03:16 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:03:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <499EC5C7.8020303@jldata.fi> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EC5C7.8020303@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <000101c99374$bdc259d0$39470d70$@no> On Behalf Of Lapinjatka > Fairly clear, but > > If East bids 3 s, what means UI from one spade bid for NS. > Is the information that East can bid 3 s with only 4 card spade UI or > AI. If UI, NS must base their bidding and defence on assumption that > East has rather strong hand and long spades. > > Best regards Juuso That will be also my understanding. Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 20 19:18:07 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:18:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> Message-ID: <499EF3DF.9040803@ulb.ac.be> >> But it sounds unfair. >> > > Why is it unfair? > > The side responsible for the irregularity may not use any information > created as a direct result of this irregularity. > AG : okay, but a mechanical error is an irregularity of the most benign type, and the price is so high. >> I was a party in a similar, recent case : >> >> North opened 1C, not alerted. I overcalled 1S (on KJ10xxx - KJ9x - x - >> Qx) in normal tempo. Then came the alert (1C was 1-round force). >> Over such an opening, we play multi-like overcalls, and my hand called >> for a 1NT overcall (6 clubs, or 6 diamonds, or 5 spades and 4 hearts). >> This is very difficult to handle, but they both knew which version I held. >> OK, the information from my 1S bid was UI to them ; but how would the TD >> ascertain what the probability was that they would have a mixup after >> the ambiguous overcall ? >> > > The probability of opponents having a mixup is completely irrelevant for the > ruling. This is a plain and simple Law 21B case of misinformation and you > were free to change you 1S call to whatever you wanted, except that you (as > always) are not allowed to change it in a way agreed upon in your > partnership understandings to apply only after irregularities like this > unless opponents are alerted to the existence of such special > understandings. > > >> In my experience, at this level (Belgian First Division, which is tier >> 2), they're hampered about 50% of the times and have a mixup about 10% >> of the time. >> I was deprived of this chance. >> > > >From what you have written you were deprived of absolutely nothing. > > I'm deprived from the chance to bid a very ambigouous, very disrupting1NT.. >> What should the TD decide ? >> > > He should apply Law 21B. > > >> IRL, the deal had a happy ending for the NOS. I decided to change my bid >> to 2S (8-11 HCP), which wasn't available over a natural 1C, and they >> had the hoped-for bidding problem. >> > > Did the 2S overcall have any systemic meaning in your partnership > understanding, and if so were opponents properly informed by your partner > and/or your system declaration? > 2S was : 6 cards, 8-11, and that's what I had. WTP ? > If your partner understood something from your 2S overcall that your > opponents were not given the possibility to understand I would say that you > came very close to cheating if not directly crossing that line. > > I certainly hope that this was not the case. > I certainly hope you read my mails better next time, because I don't like to be called c***t. See above. Once again, you proved that demolishing other contributors is more important to you than looking for truth. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 20 17:08:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:08:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25A References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> Message-ID: <000801c99375$6a7c2f70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "blml" Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:48 AM Subject: [blml] 25A > Hi all, > > Yesterday at the club, I'm called with this auction on the table: > > West North East South > -- 1 D X Pass, 3C > 1 S Director! > > When asked what happened, south said that she wanted to bid 3C as Weak > Jump Shift. She thought she pulled out the stop card, then reached for > the 3C card. When she wanted to put that on the table, she noticed a > green instead of a red card. South does indeed have a hand that > qualifies for a WJS. > > West stated that south took a few seconds before reaching for her bidding > box. During that time, west decided to bid one spade if south passed. > When she saw the green card, she made the planned bid. > > Question 1: Now what? > > I ruled that south was allowed to change her bid into 3C. The auction > continued: > > West North East South > -- 1 D X 3C > Pass Pass ?? > > At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. > > Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? > > Henk > +=+ "Information from the withdrawn call is authorized only to his side" (Law 25A4). Do you have a problem with this? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 20 21:26:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:26:13 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: 25A Message-ID: <002a01c99399$7ad33070$0302a8c0@Mildred> emails interrupted by service provider, unclear whether this went through ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 25A > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henk Uijterwaal" > To: "blml" > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 10:48 AM > Subject: [blml] 25A > > >> Hi all, >> >> Yesterday at the club, I'm called with this auction on the table: >> >> West North East South >> -- 1 D X Pass, 3C >> 1 S Director! >> >> When asked what happened, south said that she wanted to bid 3C as Weak >> Jump Shift. She thought she pulled out the stop card, then reached for >> the 3C card. When she wanted to put that on the table, she noticed a >> green instead of a red card. South does indeed have a hand that >> qualifies for a WJS. >> >> West stated that south took a few seconds before reaching for her bidding >> box. During that time, west decided to bid one spade if south passed. >> When she saw the green card, she made the planned bid. >> >> Question 1: Now what? >> >> I ruled that south was allowed to change her bid into 3C. The auction >> continued: >> >> West North East South >> -- 1 D X 3C >> Pass Pass ?? >> >> At this point, it became a lot easier for east to bid 3S. >> >> Question 2: is the withdrawn 1S UI or AI for east? >> >> Henk >> > +=+ "Information from the withdrawn call is authorized > only to his side" (Law 25A4). Do you have a problem > with this? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 20 22:11:41 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:11:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> Message-ID: On Feb 20, 2009, at 11:01 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Sven Pran a ?crit : > ......... >>> I certainly do hope that you didn't inspect South's hand to aid you >>> determine if this was a law 25A case? >> >> AG : why not ? The Laws ask us to decide whether South's claim >> that he >> didn't want to pass, and made a mechanical error, corresponds to the >> truth. Isn't South's hand an important reference for this purpose ? > > Sure it is, and when the director uses his knowledge of South's > hand when > making a ruling he gives opponents information about South's hand > that they > are not entitled to. So the director must base his ruling upon > knowledge > that doesn't disclose such information to opponents, and that is > mainly > knowledge about the behavior of South, how he apparently detected his > mistake and how he then acted. Disclose what "such information"? All the TD is ruling on is whether South's original call was the result of a mechanical error. Whether or not he looks at South's hand, his only determination is either that it was or it wasn't. Surely E-W are entitled to presume that it was whatever the director decided it was. Knowing that the TD looked at South's hand can tell them only that his ruling is a lot less likely than otherwise to be mistaken. So Sven seems to be saying that the knowledge that the TD got the ruling right is UI to E-W. What am I missing? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From svenpran at online.no Fri Feb 20 22:34:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:34:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <499EF3DF.9040803@ulb.ac.be> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> <499EF3DF.9040803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000001c993a3$12244910$366cdb30$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> But it sounds unfair. > >> > > > > Why is it unfair? > > > > The side responsible for the irregularity may not use any information > > created as a direct result of this irregularity. > > > AG : okay, but a mechanical error is an irregularity of the most benign > type, and the price is so high. Well, when the consequence is that next player (presumably in good faith) makes a subsequent call that needs to be withdrawn the irregularity is no longer so benign. > ........... > >> IRL, the deal had a happy ending for the NOS. I decided to change my bid > >> to 2S (8-11 HCP), which wasn't available over a natural 1C, and they > >> had the hoped-for bidding problem. > >> > > > > Did the 2S overcall have any systemic meaning in your partnership > > understanding, and if so were opponents properly informed by your partner > > and/or your system declaration? > > > 2S was : 6 cards, 8-11, and that's what I had. WTP ? Sorry, I didn't realize that you had the hand actually fitting your agreements for the 2S bid over a strong club. > > > If your partner understood something from your 2S overcall that your > > opponents were not given the possibility to understand I would say that you > > came very close to cheating if not directly crossing that line. > > > > I certainly hope that this was not the case. > > > I certainly hope you read my mails better next time, because I don't > like to be called c***t. I was seriously worried about the possibility of a CPU, but your post now makes it clear that this was in no way the case. Your first post gave me the impression that your main purpose in this auction was with all means to create problems for opponents, I see now that this wasn't the case. My apologies for misunderstanding. > See above. > Once again, you proved that demolishing other contributors is more > important to you than looking for truth. > Not my objective. Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 20 23:32:57 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:32:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <499EF3DF.9040803@ulb.ac.be> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> <499EF3DF.9040803@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <499F2F99.6010806@aol.com> In my reading no one was called a cheat and no one was demolished. Sven simply answered the questions, giving the numbers of the relevant laws and added some possible considerations. As far as I can see quite relevant. I don't understand your reaction; if the answer were addressed to me it would never occur to me to be insulted. Are we getting over-sensitive in blml? JE Alain Gottcheiner schrieb: >>> But it sounds unfair. >>> >> Why is it unfair? >> >> The side responsible for the irregularity may not use any information >> created as a direct result of this irregularity. >> > AG : okay, but a mechanical error is an irregularity of the most benign > type, and the price is so high. > >>> I was a party in a similar, recent case : >>> >>> North opened 1C, not alerted. I overcalled 1S (on KJ10xxx - KJ9x - x - >>> Qx) in normal tempo. Then came the alert (1C was 1-round force). >>> Over such an opening, we play multi-like overcalls, and my hand called >>> for a 1NT overcall (6 clubs, or 6 diamonds, or 5 spades and 4 hearts). >>> This is very difficult to handle, but they both knew which version I held. >>> OK, the information from my 1S bid was UI to them ; but how would the TD >>> ascertain what the probability was that they would have a mixup after >>> the ambiguous overcall ? >>> >> The probability of opponents having a mixup is completely irrelevant for the >> ruling. This is a plain and simple Law 21B case of misinformation and you >> were free to change you 1S call to whatever you wanted, except that you (as >> always) are not allowed to change it in a way agreed upon in your >> partnership understandings to apply only after irregularities like this >> unless opponents are alerted to the existence of such special >> understandings. >> >> >>> In my experience, at this level (Belgian First Division, which is tier >>> 2), they're hampered about 50% of the times and have a mixup about 10% >>> of the time. >>> I was deprived of this chance. >>> >> >From what you have written you were deprived of absolutely nothing. >> >> > > I'm deprived from the chance to bid a very ambigouous, very disrupting1NT.. >>> What should the TD decide ? >>> >> He should apply Law 21B. >> >> >>> IRL, the deal had a happy ending for the NOS. I decided to change my bid >>> to 2S (8-11 HCP), which wasn't available over a natural 1C, and they >>> had the hoped-for bidding problem. >>> >> Did the 2S overcall have any systemic meaning in your partnership >> understanding, and if so were opponents properly informed by your partner >> and/or your system declaration? >> > 2S was : 6 cards, 8-11, and that's what I had. WTP ? > >> If your partner understood something from your 2S overcall that your >> opponents were not given the possibility to understand I would say that you >> came very close to cheating if not directly crossing that line. >> >> I certainly hope that this was not the case. >> > I certainly hope you read my mails better next time, because I don't > like to be called c***t. > See above. > Once again, you proved that demolishing other contributors is more > important to you than looking for truth. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 21 00:17:48 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 00:17:48 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> Message-ID: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> On Behalf Of Eric Landau .................. > Disclose what "such information"? All the TD is ruling on is whether > South's original call was the result of a mechanical error. Whether > or not he looks at South's hand, his only determination is either > that it was or it wasn't. Surely E-W are entitled to presume that it > was whatever the director decided it was. Knowing that the TD looked > at South's hand can tell them only that his ruling is a lot less > likely than otherwise to be mistaken. So Sven seems to be saying > that the knowledge that the TD got the ruling right is UI to E-W. > What am I missing? For instance that E-W now has been told by the Director that South apparently holds a hand not in any way compatible with his allegedly inadvertent call. South might have wanted to make a psychic call but accidentally pulled the wrong card from the bid box. Every part of his attitude and body language confirms that he made a mechanical error, but if the Director now looks at his cards and rules that South's hand does not confirm a Law 25A mistake then the entire board has been destroyed by the Director disclosing essential information on South's hand to the other three players. Sven From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Feb 21 04:12:21 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:12:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no><1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net><006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl><100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> Message-ID: <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> "Bystry" writes: >> > I don't want to engage in this whole discussion yet, but that >> > statement (and >> > strange "definition" of equity) drew my attention. >> > >> > First an analogy - a policeman comes back home after the work hours >> > and sees >> > a thief trying to steal your car. Should he intervene or do nothing >> > reasoning that he is there accidentally and it would be unfair to >> > the thief >> > (?) and all other Eric's (who had their cars stolen)? >> >> Bridge isn't real life, and stealing cars isn't playing a a game. A >> better analogy would be a policeman who walks past a baseball field >> and notices a runner about to steal second base. Should he warn the >> catcher? > > I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know baseball rules, so I cannot comment on > stealing bases. But your analogy is false, because baseball's policeman is a > referee/umpire (I don't really know how is he named). And if he sees an > infraction and doesn't react, it can cost the losing team fame and a lot of > money. Actually, baseball makes the correct distinction. There are certain infractions which the umpire is required to call immediately, and there are others which are appeal plays and are called only if the appealing team requests the appeal, because the ruling is not automatic. One example of an appeal play is leaving a base before a fly ball is caught. A runner may advance after the ball is caught, but the defensive team can throw the ball to a fielder at that base, and have the fielder step on the base, appealing that the runner left too early. The runner is not automatically out on this play, as until the appeal has been made, he has the right to return to the base he left. Therefore, the umpire will not rule the runner out, and if the defense does not notice that he left early and makes another pitch, it becomes too late to ask for a ruling. In contrast, if the batter hits the ball while standing outside the batter's box, he is out automatically, with no appeal. The same distinction should apply in bridge. There are some rules which the TD should enforce as soon as he becomes aware of them, and others which he should only enforce after being called. I think we all agree that if the TD sees a pair go from section G and sit at Table H-1, he should stop the infraction immediately and not wait for the pair from section H to call him about the infraction. Similarly, if he sees a pair starting a board after the round has been called, he should intervene and tell them to take a late play on the board. However, if he sees a faulty claim, it is not his responsibility to rule unless the non-claiming side objects. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Feb 21 16:27:42 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:27:42 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no><1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net><006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl><100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> Message-ID: <49A01D6E.2020709@talktalk.net> [David Grabiner] Similarly, if he sees a pair starting a board after the round has been called, he should intervene and tell them to take a late play on the board. However, if he sees a faulty claim, it is not his responsibility to rule unless the non-claiming side objects. [TNLB L81C3] The director not the players has the responsibility for rectifying irregularities and redressing damage The director's duties and powers normally include also the following: to rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner within the correction period established in accordance with law 79C [Nigel] IMO, when the director sees a faulty claim, Law 81C3... - Mandates that the director intervene. - The "Correction" includes redress for the victims. Most directors flout Law 81C3. I guess that directors may be guilty of rationalisation. Here, please note that I'm *not* accusing directors of ignorance or stupidity or laziness or deliberate law-breaking :) The rules of Bridge are so fragmented and complex that players often break them through *ignorance* or *carelessness* or *rationalisation*. When I point out this obvious fact, some BLMLers vindictively pretend that I'm accusing players of *cheating* :) 81C3 appears to be an excellent and necessary law but perhaps some clarification is possible: - Some directors misinterpret the word "normally" (it might be better to remove that word completely). - "in any manner" seems redundant. - The meaning seems to be "that he becomes aware of within the correction period..." but it could be clarified beyond doubt. - Proactive behaviour might be encouraged more *explicitly*. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 21 16:34:17 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:34:17 -0500 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without abberation" Message-ID: SHORT VERSION "normal" in L70 and L71 should be interpreted as meaning "not irrational, not convoluted, not bizarre, etc." (given declarer's awareness of the hand as evidenced by the claiming statement, but that's a different issue). NORMAL INTERPRETED IN A STATISTICAL WAY I was interpreting "normal", in L70 and L71, in a statistical way. For example, if you define normal as the IQs of 75% of the population, then the normal range for IQs in humans is about 85 to 115. So then if there were two choices and one choice was selected by 95% of bridge players of that class, then the other choice was not-normal. This has several small problems. One is that the actual number used to differentiate normal from not-normal is undefined. That leads to differences in director rulings. Another is the problem that if you define not-normal as < 5% when there are two choices, what do you do when there are 20 choices? The small problem that bothers me the most is this. Suppose declarer claims at no trump with AK of spades, A of hearts, and 2 of clubs, saying that they are all good. If there is any chance that they are not good, it is careful play to cash the aces and the king first, because they have to be good. The laws allow that normal can include plays that are not careful. But the law nowhere says that normal includes all plays that are careless. (If "normal" included all plays that were careless or inferior, it would include all bad plays.) If a player thought that all four cards were high, maybe there MIGHT be some unconscious influence to cash the highest cards first. To follow the law, do I have to do an experiment to see the order in which these cards are plays, assuming declarer believes they are all good? How do I get to the fairly well-established principle that "normal" includes any order of play in this situation? The statistical definition works pretty good. I just think a "without abberration" definition will work a little better. NORMAL AS LACK OF ABBERATION A lay person might ask, "Am I normal or am I crazy?" A more nuanced view is preferred on this issue, but my goal here is to point to a second use of the word normal. I can't find a good phrase for this second concept, so I will say "without abberation". In reality, the two tend to be intertwined, but they are different concepts. If you interpreted "normal" as being "anything not irrational", you would be using a "without abberation" definition, with irrational being the only relevant abberation. The 1997 laws said that normal plays did not include irrational plays. This could be interpreted as implying that normal should be given a without-abberation definition. But this footnote could also be interpreted as defining the percentage needed for the statistical definition -- the percentage cannot be set so high that it includes irrational plays. However, if you define "normal" as including all rational plays, you get the fairly-well-accepted principle for the above problem -- that declarer can be forced to play the 2 of clubs first instead of the aces or king. The logic is that if declarer thinks that they are all good, then it doesn't matter what order they are played in and hence any order is rational. However, the 1997 laws did not say that all rational plays were normal. It said only that all irrational plays were not normal. That implies, by that choice of phrasing, that some rational plays are not normal. I believe we had an example of that recenly on blml. Declarer claims, but a trump is out. Fortunately for declarer, if he cashes his winners, the defender with a trump has to follow suit all of the way. The only exception is if declarer cashes some winners from the board allowing him to jettison his winning ace of diamonds in hand, unblocking the diamonds and allowing him to cash two winners on the board (pitching winning clubs), one of which will be ruffed. I think this line of play counts as rational: Assuming trump are drawn, it will succeed as well as all of the simple lines of play. However, it is convoluted, or maybe even bizarre. It is excessively flashy. (If a player wanted to work very hard to play a hand in a convoluted way just for the sake of being flashy, he/she would not have claimed.) ADVANTAGES It seems to me that interpreting "normal" as meaning "not irrational, not bizarre, not convoluted, etc." gives a better foundation for current director practice and put director decisions on a firmer footing. There will still be differences in how directors rule, but I think those differences would be reduced. This interpretation was perhaps favored in the 1997 laws, with the footnote about "irrational". The 2007 laws are perfectly ambiguous, it seems to me. But the "not irrational, not bizarre, not convoluted, etc." definition is still a possible interpretation that directors could choose. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 21 16:54:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:54:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <49A01D6E.2020709@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> <49A01D6E.2020709@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:27:42 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [David Grabiner] > Similarly, if he sees a pair starting a board after the round has been > called, he should intervene and tell them to take a late play on the > board. However, if he sees a faulty claim, it is not his responsibility > to rule unless the non-claiming side objects. > > [TNLB L81C3] > The director not the players has the responsibility for rectifying > irregularities and redressing damage The director's duties and powers > normally include also the following: > to rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any > manner within the correction period established in accordance with law > 79C > > [Nigel] > IMO, when the director sees a faulty claim, Law 81C3... > - Mandates that the director intervene. > - The "Correction" includes redress for the victims. > > Most directors flout Law 81C3. I guess that directors may be guilty of > rationalisation. Here, please note that I'm *not* accusing directors of > ignorance or stupidity or laziness or deliberate law-breaking :) > > The rules of Bridge are so fragmented and complex that players often > break them through *ignorance* or *carelessness* or *rationalisation*. > When I point out this obvious fact, some BLMLers vindictively pretend > that I'm accusing players of *cheating* :) > > 81C3 appears to be an excellent and necessary law but perhaps some > clarification is possible: > - Some directors misinterpret the word "normally" (it might be better to > remove that word completely). > - "in any manner" seems redundant. > - The meaning seems to be "that he becomes aware of within the > correction period..." but it could be clarified beyond doubt. > - Proactive behaviour might be encouraged more *explicitly*. You are assuming that this is a duty rather than just a power. To return to your policeman example, the police have the power to give me a ticket for speeding. But they (apparently) do not have a responsibility to give everyone who speeds a ticket. As a power, "in any manner" is a very important phrase that should not be removed from the law. If you interpret it as a responsibility and add practive attempts to prevent irregularities, would this greatly expand the realm of director error? (It was the director's error that I revoked!) But to make your point about fragmentation, if you want to know the responsibilities and duties of the director, you have to consider L81C3 and L82A and the start to L81C. And there may be other relevant parts of the laws, I don't know. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Feb 21 17:36:47 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:36:47 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> <49A01D6E.2020709@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49A02D9F.1080405@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] [1] You are assuming that this is a duty rather than just a power. [2] To return to your policeman example, the police have the power to give me a ticket for speeding. But they (apparently) do not have a responsibility to give everyone who speeds a ticket. [3] As a power, "in any manner" is a very important phrase that should not be removed from the law. [4] If you interpret it as a responsibility and add proactive attempts to prevent irregularities, would this greatly expand the realm of director error? (It was the director's error that I revoked! [5 But to make your point about fragmentation, if you want to know the responsibilities and duties of the director, you have to consider L81C3 and L82A and the start to L81C. And there may be other relevant parts of the laws, I don't know. [nige1] [1] The law specifies "powers *and* duties". Presumably, what follows are *both*. [2] I'm happy with Robert's analogy: (a) The *normal* duty of a policeman is to enforce the law *but* (b) Individual laws include specific discretionary elements. [3] Maybe? but L81C3 is concerned with "powers *and* duties" [4] In Robert's revoke example, the player would have to show that the director (a) wilfully ignored an observed failure to follow suit. Few players know how to read minds -- unless they've attended the relevant director-course :) [5] Thank you. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sat Feb 21 18:54:07 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:54:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without abberation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A03FBF.7090607@aol.com> Short, subjective definition of normal. For many years I have played Ghestem with various partners. We have never misbid it. This is apparently not normal. JE Robert Frick schrieb: > SHORT VERSION > "normal" in L70 and L71 should be interpreted as meaning "not irrational, > not convoluted, not bizarre, etc." (given declarer's awareness of the hand > as evidenced by the claiming statement, but that's a different issue). > > > NORMAL INTERPRETED IN A STATISTICAL WAY > > I was interpreting "normal", in L70 and L71, in a statistical way. For > example, if you define normal as the IQs of 75% of the population, then > the normal range for IQs in humans is about 85 to 115. So then if there > were two choices and one choice was selected by 95% of bridge players of > that class, then the other choice was not-normal. > > This has several small problems. One is that the actual number used to > differentiate normal from not-normal is undefined. That leads to > differences in director rulings. Another is the problem that if you define > not-normal as < 5% when there are two choices, what do you do when there > are 20 choices? > > The small problem that bothers me the most is this. Suppose declarer > claims at no trump with AK of spades, A of hearts, and 2 of clubs, saying > that they are all good. If there is any chance that they are not good, it > is careful play to cash the aces and the king first, because they have to > be good. The laws allow that normal can include plays that are not > careful. But the law nowhere says that normal includes all plays that are > careless. (If "normal" included all plays that were careless or inferior, > it would include all bad plays.) > > If a player thought that all four cards were high, maybe there MIGHT be > some unconscious influence to cash the highest cards first. To follow the > law, do I have to do an experiment to see the order in which these cards > are plays, assuming declarer believes they are all good? How do I get to > the fairly well-established principle that "normal" includes any order of > play in this situation? > > The statistical definition works pretty good. I just think a "without > abberration" definition will work a little better. > > NORMAL AS LACK OF ABBERATION > A lay person might ask, "Am I normal or am I crazy?" A more nuanced view > is preferred on this issue, but my goal here is to point to a second use > of the word normal. I can't find a good phrase for this second concept, so > I will say "without abberation". In reality, the two tend to be > intertwined, but they are different concepts. > > If you interpreted "normal" as being "anything not irrational", you would > be using a "without abberation" definition, with irrational being the only > relevant abberation. > > The 1997 laws said that normal plays did not include irrational plays. > This could be interpreted as implying that normal should be given a > without-abberation definition. But this footnote could also be interpreted > as defining the percentage needed for the statistical definition -- the > percentage cannot be set so high that it includes irrational plays. > > However, if you define "normal" as including all rational plays, you get > the fairly-well-accepted principle for the above problem -- that declarer > can be forced to play the 2 of clubs first instead of the aces or king. > The logic is that if declarer thinks that they are all good, then it > doesn't matter what order they are played in and hence any order is > rational. > > However, the 1997 laws did not say that all rational plays were normal. It > said only that all irrational plays were not normal. That implies, by that > choice of phrasing, that some rational plays are not normal. > > I believe we had an example of that recenly on blml. Declarer claims, but > a trump is out. Fortunately for declarer, if he cashes his winners, the > defender with a trump has to follow suit all of the way. The only > exception is if declarer cashes some winners from the board allowing him > to jettison his winning ace of diamonds in hand, unblocking the diamonds > and allowing him to cash two winners on the board (pitching winning > clubs), one of which will be ruffed. > > I think this line of play counts as rational: Assuming trump are drawn, it > will succeed as well as all of the simple lines of play. However, it is > convoluted, or maybe even bizarre. It is excessively flashy. (If a player > wanted to work very hard to play a hand in a convoluted way just for the > sake of being flashy, he/she would not have claimed.) > > ADVANTAGES > It seems to me that interpreting "normal" as meaning "not irrational, not > bizarre, not convoluted, etc." gives a better foundation for current > director practice and put director decisions on a firmer footing. There > will still be differences in how directors rule, but I think those > differences would be reduced. > > This interpretation was perhaps favored in the 1997 laws, with the > footnote about "irrational". The 2007 laws are perfectly ambiguous, it > seems to me. But the "not irrational, not bizarre, not convoluted, etc." > definition is still a possible interpretation that directors could choose. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Feb 21 19:23:02 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:23:02 +0000 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without abberation" In-Reply-To: <49A03FBF.7090607@aol.com> References: <49A03FBF.7090607@aol.com> Message-ID: <49A04686.4090809@talktalk.net> [Jeff Easterson] Short, subjective definition of normal. For many years I have played Ghestem with various partners. We have never misbid it. This is apparently not normal. JE [Nigel] Yes, over many years, it would be normal to hold at least one hand suitable for Ghestem :) From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Sat Feb 21 21:27:28 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (lapinjatka) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:27:28 +0200 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Sven Pran Sent: 21. helmikuuta 2009 1:18 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] 25A On Behalf Of Eric Landau .................. > Disclose what "such information"? All the TD is ruling on is whether > South's original call was the result of a mechanical error. Whether > or not he looks at South's hand, his only determination is either > that it was or it wasn't. Surely E-W are entitled to presume that it > was whatever the director decided it was. Knowing that the TD looked > at South's hand can tell them only that his ruling is a lot less > likely than otherwise to be mistaken. So Sven seems to be saying > that the knowledge that the TD got the ruling right is UI to E-W. > What am I missing? For instance that E-W now has been told by the Director that South apparently holds a hand not in any way compatible with his allegedly inadvertent call. South might have wanted to make a psychic call but accidentally pulled the wrong card from the bid box. Every part of his attitude and body language confirms that he made a mechanical error, but if the Director now looks at his cards and rules that South's hand does not confirm a Law 25A mistake then the entire board has been destroyed by the Director disclosing essential information on South's hand to the other three players. Sven In my tournaments nobody can make psychic call starting with pass, then try to bid, whatever their body language confirms. I take it chance of mind. Always. Best regards Juuso _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Sat Feb 21 21:45:28 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:45:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] 25A References: Message-ID: <8CF8063410DD48948E0788C515007C47@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "lapinjatka" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] 25A > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Sven Pran > Sent: 21. helmikuuta 2009 1:18 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blml] 25A > > On Behalf Of Eric Landau > .................. >> Disclose what "such information"? All the TD is ruling on is whether >> South's original call was the result of a mechanical error. Whether >> or not he looks at South's hand, his only determination is either >> that it was or it wasn't. Surely E-W are entitled to presume that it >> was whatever the director decided it was. Knowing that the TD looked >> at South's hand can tell them only that his ruling is a lot less >> likely than otherwise to be mistaken. So Sven seems to be saying >> that the knowledge that the TD got the ruling right is UI to E-W. >> What am I missing? > > For instance that E-W now has been told by the Director that South > apparently holds a hand not in any way compatible with his allegedly > inadvertent call. > > South might have wanted to make a psychic call but accidentally pulled the > wrong card from the bid box. Every part of his attitude and body language > confirms that he made a mechanical error, but if the Director now looks at > his cards and rules that South's hand does not confirm a Law 25A mistake > then the entire board has been destroyed by the Director disclosing > essential information on South's hand to the other three players. > > Sven > In my tournaments nobody can make psychic call starting with pass, then > try > to bid, whatever their body language confirms. I take it chance of mind. > Always. I have once been called top the table by a little old lady who was looking in a very puzzled way at a pass card in front of her (Dealer, 1st bid in auction). I applied L25A, confident I was right. . She had NO idea how it had got there, the body language made it clear. It clearly was not her intended call. The opponents agreed John > > Best regards Juuso > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 svenpran at online.no Sat Feb 21 22:21:46 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:21:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: References: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> Message-ID: <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> On Behalf Of lapinjatka > On Behalf Of Eric Landau .............. > > What am I missing? > > For instance that E-W now has been told by the Director that South > apparently holds a hand not in any way compatible with his allegedly > inadvertent call. > > South might have wanted to make a psychic call but accidentally pulled the > wrong card from the bid box. Every part of his attitude and body language > confirms that he made a mechanical error, but if the Director now looks at > his cards and rules that South's hand does not confirm a Law 25A mistake > then the entire board has been destroyed by the Director disclosing > essential information on South's hand to the other three players. > > Sven > In my tournaments nobody can make psychic call starting with pass, then try > to bid, whatever their body language confirms. I take it chance of mind. > Always. > > Best regards Juuso Tell me what prevents a player who has decided to make a psychic opening bid from accidentally make a mechanical error and place the pass card on the table (instead of a STOP card or the psychic bid he intended)?. It is an acknowledged fact that if the Director looks at a hand and then gives a ruling the probability is very high that he is revealing something from that hand. Therefore such action by the Director is synonymous with "Director's error". I didn't assume any possibility that an initial pass had anything to do with a psyche, I assumed the possibility that the player had intended a psychic call and made a mechanical error resulting in his first call whatever that call was. What is the Director now got to learn by looking at his hand? For all you and I know that hand could be a genuine Yarborough (a hand with 9-spots as it highest ranking card). The Director must always make such rulings from the impression he gets of the situation; the players' descriptions of how things happened, body languages and so on. But he MUST NEVER, EVER look at a player's hand in order to make a ruling affecting this player's call or play. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Sat Feb 21 22:39:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:39:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without abberation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2D7F7C5E-BA74-468C-AF1F-58AE6ACAA042@starpower.net> On Feb 21, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > SHORT VERSION > "normal" in L70 and L71 should be interpreted as meaning "not > irrational, > not convoluted, not bizarre, etc." (given declarer's awareness of > the hand > as evidenced by the claiming statement, but that's a different issue). The problem, of course, is that the footnote that defines "normal" reads, in its entirety, "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved," which makes no reference whatsoever to anything like "irrational", "convoluted" or "bizarre". There's just nothing there to support the notion that it should be interpreted with reference to any such concept. > NORMAL INTERPRETED IN A STATISTICAL WAY > > I was interpreting "normal", in L70 and L71, in a statistical way. For > example, if you define normal as the IQs of 75% of the population, > then > the normal range for IQs in humans is about 85 to 115. So then if > there > were two choices and one choice was selected by 95% of bridge > players of > that class, then the other choice was not-normal. If you redefined "normal" intelligence as "including any intelligence that is inferior", how could that mean anything other than a range of 0 to 115? > This has several small problems. One is that the actual number used to > differentiate normal from not-normal is undefined. That leads to > differences in director rulings. Another is the problem that if you > define > not-normal as < 5% when there are two choices, what do you do when > there > are 20 choices? > > The small problem that bothers me the most is this. Suppose declarer > claims at no trump with AK of spades, A of hearts, and 2 of clubs, > saying > that they are all good. If there is any chance that they are not > good, it > is careful play to cash the aces and the king first, because they > have to > be good. The laws allow that normal can include plays that are not > careful. But the law nowhere says that normal includes all plays > that are > careless. (If "normal" included all plays that were careless or > inferior, > it would include all bad plays.) > > If a player thought that all four cards were high, maybe there > MIGHT be > some unconscious influence to cash the highest cards first. To > follow the > law, do I have to do an experiment to see the order in which these > cards > are plays, assuming declarer believes they are all good? How do I > get to > the fairly well-established principle that "normal" includes any > order of > play in this situation? > > The statistical definition works pretty good. I just think a "without > abberration" definition will work a little better. > > NORMAL AS LACK OF ABBERATION > A lay person might ask, "Am I normal or am I crazy?" A more nuanced > view > is preferred on this issue, but my goal here is to point to a > second use > of the word normal. I can't find a good phrase for this second > concept, so > I will say "without abberation". In reality, the two tend to be > intertwined, but they are different concepts. I'd say "but not irrational" comes pretty close to "without abberation". Too bad those words just aren't there any more, nor any like them. > If you interpreted "normal" as being "anything not irrational", you > would > be using a "without abberation" definition, with irrational being > the only > relevant abberation. > > The 1997 laws said that normal plays did not include irrational plays. > This could be interpreted as implying that normal should be given a > without-abberation definition. But this footnote could also be > interpreted > as defining the percentage needed for the statistical definition -- > the > percentage cannot be set so high that it includes irrational plays. > > However, if you define "normal" as including all rational plays, > you get > the fairly-well-accepted principle for the above problem -- that > declarer > can be forced to play the 2 of clubs first instead of the aces or > king. > The logic is that if declarer thinks that they are all good, then it > doesn't matter what order they are played in and hence any order is > rational. > > However, the 1997 laws did not say that all rational plays were > normal. It > said only that all irrational plays were not normal. That implies, > by that > choice of phrasing, that some rational plays are not normal. > > I believe we had an example of that recenly on blml. Declarer > claims, but > a trump is out. Fortunately for declarer, if he cashes his winners, > the > defender with a trump has to follow suit all of the way. The only > exception is if declarer cashes some winners from the board > allowing him > to jettison his winning ace of diamonds in hand, unblocking the > diamonds > and allowing him to cash two winners on the board (pitching winning > clubs), one of which will be ruffed. > > I think this line of play counts as rational: Assuming trump are > drawn, it > will succeed as well as all of the simple lines of play. However, > it is > convoluted, or maybe even bizarre. It is excessively flashy. (If a > player > wanted to work very hard to play a hand in a convoluted way just > for the > sake of being flashy, he/she would not have claimed.) > > ADVANTAGES > It seems to me that interpreting "normal" as meaning "not > irrational, not > bizarre, not convoluted, etc." gives a better foundation for current > director practice and put director decisions on a firmer footing. > There > will still be differences in how directors rule, but I think those > differences would be reduced. I agree entirely. Now all we need is a new law (or a new footnote) from which such an interpretation could be derived based on something in the text. > This interpretation was perhaps favored in the 1997 laws, with the > footnote about "irrational". The 2007 laws are perfectly ambiguous, it > seems to me. But the "not irrational, not bizarre, not convoluted, > etc." > definition is still a possible interpretation that directors could > choose. > How so, especially given that the words of the 1997 laws that favored that interpretation have been deliberately and explicitly removed? I see no ambiguity in the current formulation beyond whether the folks who took "but not irrational" out of the law intended to do so or temporarily lost their minds. The problem is, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, the footnote is perfectly clear: "normal" includes (a) any play that would be considered normal absent the footnote, plus (b) any play that is more careless than that, plus (c) any play that is inferior to that. "Class of player" merely distinguishes (a) from (b) or (c) in individual cases. There is simply nothing there to suggest a floor. Instead, there is the new L70E2, which gives RA's the authority to create one from scratch, which only reinforces the notion that none is to be found elsewhere in L70. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 22 06:39:47 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 00:39:47 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: <49A02D9F.1080405@talktalk.net> References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> <49A01D6E.2020709@talktalk.net> <49A02D9F.1080405@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:36:47 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Robert Frick] > [1] You are assuming that this is a duty rather than just a power. > [2] To return to your policeman example, the police have the power to > give me a ticket for speeding. But they (apparently) do not have a > responsibility to give everyone who speeds a ticket. > [3] As a power, "in any manner" is a very important phrase that should > not be removed from the law. > [4] If you interpret it as a responsibility and add proactive attempts > to prevent irregularities, would this greatly expand the realm of > director error? (It was the director's error that I revoked! > [5 But to make your point about fragmentation, if you want to know the > responsibilities and duties of the director, you have to consider L81C3 > and L82A and the start to L81C. And there may be other relevant parts > of the laws, I don't know. > > [nige1] > [1] The law specifies "powers *and* duties". Presumably, what follows > are *both*. First, in English, I think, a list of A and B contains A or B. For example, a list of US Presidents and US Vice Presidents. ('Things that are A and B' is different -- Washington doesn't get on the list of people who have been US President and US Vice President.) Second, I don't think everything in Law81C can be interpreted as both a power and a duty. The case-by-case gets interesting. What does it mean to have either the power or duty to exercise a power? (L81C4) Do I really have the duty to advise players of their rights and responsibilities? (L81C2) I think this would onerously expand the scope of director error. But to give one positive example, I think L81C7 has to be a power, not a duty ("to refer any matter to an appropriate committee"). Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 22 09:52:32 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 03:52:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without abberation" In-Reply-To: <2D7F7C5E-BA74-468C-AF1F-58AE6ACAA042@starpower.net> References: <2D7F7C5E-BA74-468C-AF1F-58AE6ACAA042@starpower.net> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:39:49 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Feb 21, 2009, at 10:34 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > >> SHORT VERSION >> "normal" in L70 and L71 should be interpreted as meaning "not >> irrational, >> not convoluted, not bizarre, etc." (given declarer's awareness of >> the hand >> as evidenced by the claiming statement, but that's a different issue). > > The problem, of course, is that the footnote that defines "normal" > reads, in its entirety, "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? > includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > player involved," which makes no reference whatsoever to anything > like "irrational", "convoluted" or "bizarre". There's just nothing > there to support the notion that it should be interpreted with > reference to any such concept. > >> NORMAL INTERPRETED IN A STATISTICAL WAY >> >> I was interpreting "normal", in L70 and L71, in a statistical way. For >> example, if you define normal as the IQs of 75% of the population, >> then >> the normal range for IQs in humans is about 85 to 115. So then if >> there >> were two choices and one choice was selected by 95% of bridge >> players of >> that class, then the other choice was not-normal. > > If you redefined "normal" intelligence as "including any intelligence > that is inferior", how could that mean anything other than a range of > 0 to 115? > >> This has several small problems. One is that the actual number used to >> differentiate normal from not-normal is undefined. That leads to >> differences in director rulings. Another is the problem that if you >> define >> not-normal as < 5% when there are two choices, what do you do when >> there >> are 20 choices? >> >> The small problem that bothers me the most is this. Suppose declarer >> claims at no trump with AK of spades, A of hearts, and 2 of clubs, >> saying >> that they are all good. If there is any chance that they are not >> good, it >> is careful play to cash the aces and the king first, because they >> have to >> be good. The laws allow that normal can include plays that are not >> careful. But the law nowhere says that normal includes all plays >> that are >> careless. (If "normal" included all plays that were careless or >> inferior, >> it would include all bad plays.) >> >> If a player thought that all four cards were high, maybe there >> MIGHT be >> some unconscious influence to cash the highest cards first. To >> follow the >> law, do I have to do an experiment to see the order in which these >> cards >> are plays, assuming declarer believes they are all good? How do I >> get to >> the fairly well-established principle that "normal" includes any >> order of >> play in this situation? >> >> The statistical definition works pretty good. I just think a "without >> abberration" definition will work a little better. >> >> NORMAL AS LACK OF ABBERATION >> A lay person might ask, "Am I normal or am I crazy?" A more nuanced >> view >> is preferred on this issue, but my goal here is to point to a >> second use >> of the word normal. I can't find a good phrase for this second >> concept, so >> I will say "without abberation". In reality, the two tend to be >> intertwined, but they are different concepts. > > I'd say "but not irrational" comes pretty close to "without > abberation". Too bad those words just aren't there any more, nor any > like them. > >> If you interpreted "normal" as being "anything not irrational", you >> would >> be using a "without abberation" definition, with irrational being >> the only >> relevant abberation. >> >> The 1997 laws said that normal plays did not include irrational plays. >> This could be interpreted as implying that normal should be given a >> without-abberation definition. But this footnote could also be >> interpreted >> as defining the percentage needed for the statistical definition -- >> the >> percentage cannot be set so high that it includes irrational plays. >> >> However, if you define "normal" as including all rational plays, >> you get >> the fairly-well-accepted principle for the above problem -- that >> declarer >> can be forced to play the 2 of clubs first instead of the aces or >> king. >> The logic is that if declarer thinks that they are all good, then it >> doesn't matter what order they are played in and hence any order is >> rational. >> >> However, the 1997 laws did not say that all rational plays were >> normal. It >> said only that all irrational plays were not normal. That implies, >> by that >> choice of phrasing, that some rational plays are not normal. >> >> I believe we had an example of that recenly on blml. Declarer >> claims, but >> a trump is out. Fortunately for declarer, if he cashes his winners, >> the >> defender with a trump has to follow suit all of the way. The only >> exception is if declarer cashes some winners from the board >> allowing him >> to jettison his winning ace of diamonds in hand, unblocking the >> diamonds >> and allowing him to cash two winners on the board (pitching winning >> clubs), one of which will be ruffed. >> >> I think this line of play counts as rational: Assuming trump are >> drawn, it >> will succeed as well as all of the simple lines of play. However, >> it is >> convoluted, or maybe even bizarre. It is excessively flashy. (If a >> player >> wanted to work very hard to play a hand in a convoluted way just >> for the >> sake of being flashy, he/she would not have claimed.) >> >> ADVANTAGES >> It seems to me that interpreting "normal" as meaning "not >> irrational, not >> bizarre, not convoluted, etc." gives a better foundation for current >> director practice and put director decisions on a firmer footing. >> There >> will still be differences in how directors rule, but I think those >> differences would be reduced. > > I agree entirely. Now all we need is a new law (or a new footnote) > from which such an interpretation could be derived based on something > in the text. > >> This interpretation was perhaps favored in the 1997 laws, with the >> footnote about "irrational". The 2007 laws are perfectly ambiguous, it >> seems to me. But the "not irrational, not bizarre, not convoluted, >> etc." >> definition is still a possible interpretation that directors could >> choose. > >> > > How so, especially given that the words of the 1997 laws that favored > that interpretation have been deliberately and explicitly removed? I > see no ambiguity in the current formulation beyond whether the folks > who took "but not irrational" out of the law intended to do so or > temporarily lost their minds. While there may be nothing in the 2007 Laws to suggest that normal should be given a "without-abberation" definition, there is also nothing in the 2007 Laws to suggest that normal should be given a statistical decision. So, when I said you "should" give it a "without-abberation" definition, I did not mean you should because of the laws. I meant that when you are applying your power or duty to interpret the laws, you have to decide how to interpret "normal". It would be to any director's benefit to use that interpretation (because a statisical interpretation doesn't provide as much guidance). > > The problem is, as much as we'd like to believe otherwise, the > footnote is perfectly clear: "normal" includes (a) any play that > would be considered normal absent the footnote, plus (b) any play > that is more careless than that, plus (c) any play that is inferior > to that. "Class of player" merely distinguishes (a) from (b) or (c) > in individual cases. There is simply nothing there to suggest a > floor. Instead, there is the new L70E2, which gives RA's the > authority to create one from scratch, which only reinforces the > notion that none is to be found elsewhere in L70. Hmmm, I think it is a blml joke that we all agree the laws are clear, we just can't agree on what they mean. The footnote doesn't define normal, it just says that normal includes inferior play. I think that has to be some inferior play, not all inferior play, because no reasonable definition of "normal" includes wildly inferior plays. For example, with A1073 KQ964 we can argue whether playing the ace first is normal for a class of player. But if "normal" had to include all inferior plays, it would have to include playing the king and overtaking with the ace (and losing 3 tricks to J852). That's not normal by any definition. So then it has to be the same for careless play. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Feb 22 11:58:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 10:58:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without aberration" References: <2D7F7C5E-BA74-468C-AF1F-58AE6ACAA042@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002c01c994df$b276fc90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:52 AM Subject: Re: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without aberration" The problem, of course, is that the footnote that defines "normal" reads, in its entirety, "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, ?normal? includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved," which makes no reference whatsoever to anything like "irrational", "convoluted" or "bizarre". There's just nothing there to support the notion that it should be interpreted with reference to any such concept. >> +=+ In drafting the 2007 code the reference to irrationality was removed from this footnote. The purpose was to detach irrationality from any link to 'the class of player'. 'Irrational' is to be understood where it occurs in the laws according to its dictionary meaning, a matter purely of logic and reason unaffected by the class of player concerned. Off the cuff I recall the word only in Law 70E1. In applying Law 70D it seems right to class plays as 'normal' (inclusive of plays that are inferior or careless for the class of player) and plays that do not meet that criterion (which would include plays that are irrational whatever the class of player). My personal interpretation of this is that a play that in the past would have been classed as normal for Mrs. G but irrational for an expert is now to be deemed 'inferior' for the expert. There is no prescribed limitation on the degree of inferiority, short of its being irrational for any class of player. [ But it would be interesting to know whether this fits with Bill Schoder's motivation for changing the law, and whether Max Bavin would apply the law that way in WBF events. ] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Feb 22 19:58:05 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:58:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? In-Reply-To: References: <000d01c990ca$5b5795f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c99164$2876c800$79645800$@no> <1EB27594-3D66-4C3F-A529-2D47F5AFA330@starpower.net> <006901c99200$ea3a14a0$15844c59@chello.pl> <100A77EE-C258-4BD5-B746-A6A17546B330@starpower.net> <000b01c9921d$1ad45640$15844c59@chello.pl> <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> <49A01D6E.2020709@talktalk.net> <49A02D9F.1080405@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49A1A03D.2080307@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] First, in English, I think, a list of A and B contains A or B. For example, a list of US Presidents and US Vice Presidents. ('Things that are A and B' is different -- Washington doesn't get on the list of people who have been US President and US Vice President.) Second, I don't think everything in Law81C can be interpreted as both a power and a duty. The case-by-case gets interesting. What does it mean to have either the power or duty to exercise a power? (L81C4) Do I really have the duty to advise players of their rights and responsibilities? (L81C2) I think this would onerously expand the scope of director error. But to give one positive example, I think L81C7 has to be a power, not a duty ("to refer any matter to an appropriate committee"). [Nigel] I think they are all meant to be both powers and duties. Nevertheless, I agree that Robert's interpretation is possible, at a stretch. As with so many other (perceived or real) ambiguities, law-makers could tidy up the English, in place, in a web edition of the law-book. But that would spoil most of the fun for BLMLers :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 22 22:03:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:03:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary, page 2: >>>>Our advice is to restrict by regulation the number of boards on >>>>which an average plus score is given, for example, to two boards >>>>in a session. If there are more boards without a result obtained >>>>by normal play those boards are not scored. Richard Hills postures and "interprets": >>>Note that Law 78D (Conditions of Contest) states: >>> >>>"...The Conditions must not conflict with law..." Grattan Endicott: >>...An error in the movement falls within the category of Director's >>errors, even if it was foisted upon him by incompetent back-room >>staff, and the WBFLC minute of 30th October 2001 is still >>applicable, viz:- >> "The committee agreed that references to irregularities in the >>laws refer to irregularities committed by players. An action by a >>Director may be an error but this does not constitute an >>'irregularity' within the meaning of the laws." >> In my opinion the Regulating Authority has powers under Laws >>78D and 80B to make provision in conditions of entry for a >>situation such as that, and the Director has his Law 81B1 powers... William Schoder: >thank you Grattan. I thought we had put this baby to bed along time >ago, but as with so many other things there would be less to posture >about and "interpret" on BLML if it simply accepted what is the >workable situation. >Kojak Richard Hills postures and "interprets": I have no qualms about the Director doing whatever it takes to rescue a movement which has collapsed. But the not-yet-official Commentary has an unequivocal scope. It seems to imply that if there has _not_ been a Director's error, and if the movement has _not_ collapsed, then a pair who: (a) has had three separate opponents infract Law 7B2, so consequently (b) has gained three average-plus scores under Law 13D2(b), will have (c) one of those three average-plus scores cancelled under Law # ??? What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sun Feb 22 23:32:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:32:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <07AAFFC6B9BD45BCA9EDDC7F08376435@erdos> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1. What am I trying to say? 2. What words will express it? 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two more: 5. Could I put it more shortly? 6. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?" David Grabiner, base balls: >Actually, baseball makes the correct distinction. There are certain >infractions which the umpire is required to call immediately, and >there are others which are appeal plays and are called only if the >appealing team requests the appeal, because the ruling is not >automatic. [snip] >The same distinction should apply in bridge. There are some rules >which the TD should enforce as soon as he becomes aware of them, and >others which he should only enforce after being called. [snip] Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary, page 18, bridge base: Law 81C3 The intention expressed here is to strive for equitable results even if the players do not notice an irregularity or do not care about it. When a revoke goes unnoticed but (later) the TD becomes aware of it (for example he hears about it from a spectator), he needs to use Law 64C if that revoke changes the result. If he is in doubt about a result handed in, he needs to take action. 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 Feb 23 01:42:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:42:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Ton's commentary on average plus [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <499E7704.5010402@skynet.be> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink." Herman De Wael asserted: [snip] >Also, the WBF does not even have regulations covering all things. >The Lille happenings resulted in a number of decisions by the WBF, >that were not supported by previously written regulations. [snip] 1997 Law 81C3 - Conditions of Play: "The Director's duties and powers normally include the following: to establish suitable conditions of play and to announce them to the contestants." Richard Hills quibbles: Unlike the 1997 versions of Law 78D and Law 80B, which required the Lille sponsoring organisation to provide rules in "advance", no such "advance" limitation was then placed on Lille's Chief Director by the 1997 Law 81C3. Therefore it was entirely legal for Lille's Chief Director to design and enforce ex post facto rules when the movement collapsed. The 2007 versions of Law 78D and Law 80B2(b) again require rules to be provided in "advance" by the Tournament Organizer. But again, as Grattan Endicott has noted, all Directors have retained their 1997 ex post facto rule-creating powers via the new 2007 Law 81B1: "The Director is responsible for the on-site technical management of the tournament. He has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer." 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 Feb 23 03:41:35 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:41:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:32:16 -0500, wrote: > George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): > > "A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask > himself at least four questions, thus: > 1. What am I trying to say? > 2. What words will express it? > 3. What image or idiom will make it clearer? > 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? > And he will probably ask himself two more: > 5. Could I put it more shortly? > 6. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?" > > David Grabiner, base balls: > >> Actually, baseball makes the correct distinction. There are certain >> infractions which the umpire is required to call immediately, and >> there are others which are appeal plays and are called only if the >> appealing team requests the appeal, because the ruling is not >> automatic. > > [snip] > >> The same distinction should apply in bridge. There are some rules >> which the TD should enforce as soon as he becomes aware of them, and >> others which he should only enforce after being called. > > [snip] > > Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary, page 18, bridge base: > > Law 81C3 > The intention expressed here is to strive for equitable results even if > the players do not notice an irregularity or do not care about it. When > a revoke goes unnoticed but (later) the TD becomes aware of it (for > example he hears about it from a spectator), he needs to use Law 64C if > that revoke changes the result. If he is in doubt about a result handed > in, he needs to take action. Thanks for finding this, Richard. Isn't this another example of Ton going beyond the stated law in his commentary? Not everything listed in L81C is a duty, so why is Ton making this a duty? Or let's be practical. It works pretty well in a high-level tournament. But that is precisely the place where a director would want to exercise his right to make this change. More than one person has said they won't follow this as a duty in a club game, I think. I also disagree with Ton's claim that L70A applies to the application of L69B. Is he saying that doubtful points are resolved in favor of the players rescinding their acquiescence? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Feb 23 07:31:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:31:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Defining normal au gratin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002c01c994df$b276fc90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Grattan Endicott, personal interpretation: [snip] > My personal interpretation of this is that a play that in >the past would have been classed as normal for Mrs. G but >irrational for an expert is now to be deemed 'inferior' for the >expert. There is no prescribed limitation on the degree of >inferiority, short of its being irrational for any class of player. Richard Hills, personal quibble: The current 2007 claim footnote does not solidly say, "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior," but rather windily says, "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." Ergo, my personal interpretation is that "the class of player involved" _is_ a prescribed limitation on the degree of inferiority. Grattan Endicott, personal interpretation: >[ But it would be interesting to know whether this fits with >Bill Schoder's motivation for changing the law, and whether >Max Bavin would apply the law that way in WBF events. ] > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, personal interpretation: Suppose there are n possible lines of play for Mrs Guggenheim. Suppose Mrs Guggenheim's frequency distribution is adopting: (a) 5% = the normal and correct lines of play, (b) 85% = the normal and inferior/careless lines of play, (c) 0% = the abnormal and ridiculous lines of play, (d) 5% = the normal and irrational lines of play, (e) 5% = the normal and irrational and illegal lines of play. For lines of play considered by Mrs Guggenheim, the Unlucky Expert's corresponding frequency distribution is: (a) 5% = the normal and correct lines of play, (b) 5% = the normal and inferior/careless lines of play, (c) 80% = the abnormal and ridiculous lines of play, (d) 5% = the abnormal and irrational lines of play, (e) 5% = the abnormal and irrational and illegal lines of play. A series of psychology experiments was once performed upon the ultimate Unlucky Experts, chess grandmasters. The popular view that chess grandmasters analyse many more moves than chess bunnies was proved to be false. Rather, chess grandmasters have trained themselves to not see abnormal and ridiculous moves (which chess bunnies thoughtfully consider and often adopt) but instead restrict their analysis to a very small number of truly promising moves. Anecdotal evidence suggests that chess experts who have defected to become bridge players are not necessarily highly expert in all key aspects of bridge (e.g. tact, homework, consistency, etc) but do tend to be highly expert at squeezes and endplays. So if a former chess expert claims on a double squeeze, then..... What's the problem? Best wishes Richard Hills, former Chess Champion of Tasmania -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 23 07:34:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:34:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H Double ? You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 nbpfemu at bigpond.com Mon Feb 23 08:01:28 2009 From: nbpfemu at bigpond.com (Noel & Pamela) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:01:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <26689954CE2645F19D89C80C07B2DD56@noelf36449040c> >Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. >The bidding has gone: >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C 1H Double ? >You, South, hold: >32 >KJ8632 >64 >J32 >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? 1S is forcing... ;-) 4H. regards, Noel -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: 02/21/09 15:36:00 From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Feb 23 08:26:01 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 23:26:01 -0800 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: From: > Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C 1H Double ? > > You, South, hold: > > 32 > KJ8632 > 64 > J32 > > What call do you make? 1S > What other calls do you consider making? 2S Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Feb 23 08:58:34 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:58:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/2/23 : > > Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C 1H Double ? > > You, South, hold: > > 32 > KJ8632 > 64 > J32 > > What call do you make? 4H > What other calls do you consider making? None > > > 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 > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From sater at xs4all.nl Mon Feb 23 10:13:41 2009 From: sater at xs4all.nl (Hans van Staveren) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:13:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <014101c99597$053f61d0$0fbe2570$@nl> Difficult. The one call I will most certainly not make is 4H. If it then goes 4S, dbl I am totally lost. Various psyches suggest themselves, as they always do on such occasions. Bidding spades could work, bidding notrump could work. Against good opponents I would probably bid 5H. Any other call(except 4H) I would consider making. Hans -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: maandag 23 februari 2009 7:34 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H Double ? You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 23 10:38:17 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:38:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <000001c993a3$12244910$366cdb30$@no> References: <499E8A73.7030103@ripe.net> <002201c99357$928fb860$b7af2920$@no> <499EAF45.7080104@ulb.ac.be> <000001c99374$70a0de10$51e29a30$@no> <499EF3DF.9040803@ulb.ac.be> <000001c993a3$12244910$366cdb30$@no> Message-ID: <49A26E89.4050300@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > I was seriously worried about the possibility of a CPU, but your post now > makes it clear that this was in no way the case. > > Your first post gave me the impression that your main purpose in this > auction was with all means to create problems for opponents, I see now that > this wasn't the case. My apologies for misunderstanding. > > Well, you're right on one point. I deliberately chose an imperfect 2S (which shouldn't provide a side heart suit in any book) because the other two possibilities were de-ambiguousized (?) by opponent's error and I desperately wanted to disturb their system. But that's only tactics. BTW, this still doesn't answer the important question : how on Earth can the TD make any ruling that would compensate for the loss of azmbiguity in their bidding ? The main defect of Polish, Roman and otehr multi-way clubs is that ambiguous overcalls can put them off-balance. By not alerting (or late), they're avoiding this, and that's not the first time it happened. But since that risk can't be quantified, no redress is possible. (well, I just suppose that's one of those cases where the TD might deem the result impossible to ascertain and award A+/A-, but is that enough compensation ? My record against Polish Club, when we managed to sneak in one of those ambiguous overcalls, is far above 60%). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 23 10:48:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 10:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> References: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> Message-ID: <49A270EF.9030008@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > > But he MUST NEVER, EVER look at a player's hand in order to make a ruling > affecting this player's call or play. > Hasn't it been said before, that deciding whether a contract was doubled or not (in case of disagreement between players) will use the (potential) doubler's hand as one of the main arguments of likelihood ? Now, if the disagreement springs during the deal (like in : South : what's the contract ? - East : 3SX - North : no, not doubled), the ruling should be given before the play proceeds, and will iunfluence it. Best regards Alain From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Mon Feb 23 11:08:31 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:08:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A2759F.2060708@jldata.fi> This is not our deal. I would bid obvious 4h. I could bid only 2h, in hoping to get 2s-3h-3s-all pass, but this is only dream. I also could bid 1nt, but only in very normal tempo. If my spades would be Qx instead of xx, i could also bid 3s to promote q as trick. Best regards Juuso richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C 1H Double ? > > You, South, hold: > > 32 > KJ8632 > 64 > J32 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > > > 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 Gampas at aol.com Mon Feb 23 11:56:42 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:56:42 EST Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: [richard hills asks] The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H Double ? You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [paul lamford] I like 2S, fit, or redouble, penalty seeking. 1NT has some appeal. What is important is not to do the same thing all the time; here one should warp inveterately but not invariably. And it depends on how many spades the doubler shows or denies. This looks like a hand where the opponents got an adjusted score (and the fielder a red classification) when partner did not raise spades sufficiently and the babies complained their candy floss had been taken from them. That is fine if they were babies, but not if they were adults. But I am not very good at "what happened next?" From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 23 12:32:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:32:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <49A270EF.9030008@ulb.ac.be> References: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> <49A270EF.9030008@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601c995aa$7853da30$68fb8e90$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > > > But he MUST NEVER, EVER look at a player's hand in order to make a ruling > > affecting this player's call or play. > > > Hasn't it been said before, that deciding whether a contract was doubled > or not (in case of disagreement between players) will use the > (potential) doubler's hand as one of the main arguments of likelihood ? > Now, if the disagreement springs during the deal (like in : South : > what's the contract ? - East : 3SX - North : no, not doubled), the > ruling should be given before the play proceeds, and will iunfluence it. The Director must in such a case ask the players to reconstruct their auction. I shall be very surprised if this proves impossible, but if it does I shall tell the players that they cannot complete the board in any normal way under the circumstances and that I consider both sides at fault. This means that unless they can reach an agreement they will both receive A- In addition if the facilities allow for registering the contract before play begins I shall consider a PP for failing to register the contract while memory was fresh. Sven From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 23 12:38:05 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:38:05 +0000 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A28A9D.1060001@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H Double ? What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nigel] IMO 4H = 10, 4N = 5, 2C/2D = 4, 1S = 3 I don't recommend responding in a short suit, but many BLMLers would routinely do so. In a regular partnership. - If asked, should their partners declare that as an agreement? - Alternatively, should my partner alert to confess that I'm unlikely to "psych" in this context? An old bidding competition question, in a British magazine, asked what would you open in 3rd seat after 2 passes with S:AKQJ H:xxx D:xxx C:xxx. An anti-systemic 1S bid was unanimous -- although, at the time, for the UK readership, it was also *illegal* to have such an agreement, at most levels of competition :) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Feb 23 12:57:04 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:57:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200902231157.n1NBv7lW005775@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:34 PM 23/02/2009, you wrote: >Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. >The bidding has gone: > >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >1C 1H Double ? > >You, South, hold: > >32 >KJ8632 >64 >J32 > >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? > At last a bidding question to which I know the answer. I (and Tim Seres) pass, and NS fail to find their slam Cheers Tony (Sydney) >Best wishes > >Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 >Telephone: 02 6223 8453 >Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au >Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets > > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise >the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, >including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged >and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination >or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the >intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has >obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy >policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: >http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Feb 23 13:23:13 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:23:13 +0000 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200902231157.n1NBv7lW005775@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <200902231157.n1NBv7lW005775@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <49A29531.6090506@talktalk.net> [Tony Musgrove] At last a bidding question to which I know the answer. I (and Tim Seres) pass, and NS fail to find their slam. [Nigel] Good idea. On reflection, I agree that Pass deserves full marks. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 23 14:24:53 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:24:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <000601c995aa$7853da30$68fb8e90$@no> References: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> <49A270EF.9030008@ulb.ac.be> <000601c995aa$7853da30$68fb8e90$@no> Message-ID: <49A2A3A5.4060309@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > >> Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >>> But he MUST NEVER, EVER look at a player's hand in order to make a >>> > ruling > >>> affecting this player's call or play. >>> >>> >> Hasn't it been said before, that deciding whether a contract was doubled >> or not (in case of disagreement between players) will use the >> (potential) doubler's hand as one of the main arguments of likelihood ? >> Now, if the disagreement springs during the deal (like in : South : >> what's the contract ? - East : 3SX - North : no, not doubled), the >> ruling should be given before the play proceeds, and will iunfluence it. >> > > The Director must in such a case ask the players to reconstruct their > auction. I shall be very surprised if this proves impossible, but if it does > I shall tell the players that they cannot complete the board in any normal > way under the circumstances and that I consider both sides at fault. > > This means that unless they can reach an agreement they will both receive A- > > Notice that, usually, the only dissesnsion would be over chether there was a concludign double or not. Also notice that if you end up by saying they're all at fault and give A-/A-, you're not following TFLB, because : 1) of course, one side has given the right version of the bidding, so calling them both at fault is obviously wrong. 2) L85 says you must give a decision to allow the play to continue ; obviously, you aren't doing that. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 23 14:36:43 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:36:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A28A9D.1060001@talktalk.net> References: <49A28A9D.1060001@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49A2A66B.9010202@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [richard.hills] > Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West > You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1C 1H Double ? > What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? > > [Nigel] > IMO 4H = 10, 4N = 5, 2C/2D = 4, 1S = 3 > AG : any number of hearts could be right, from 2 to 5. My partner recently bid only 3 in our suit on a much better trick-taking hand with a 6-card fit and that was the right way to let them miss their slam. IMOCO, 3H or 4H = 10, 5H = 5 (too dangerous facing partner's AQ10x and an Ace), any psyche = 3 to 5, but if I had to choose any, I'd try something believable and difficult to double, like 2NT (raise) or 2S (fit-jump). Or pass. > I don't recommend responding in a short suit, but many BLMLers would > routinely do so. In a regular partnership. > - If asked, should their partners declare that as an agreement? > AG : yes, if it happened but twice (L75B old). > - Alternatively, should my partner alert to confess that I'm unlikely to > "psych" in this context? > AG : nope. If they do want to know, there is a section on the CC"s front page, and that's one part that I always check before the turn. Also, a low probability of psyche isn't 'unexpected', so it isn't alertable. > An old bidding competition question, in a British magazine, asked what > would you open in 3rd seat after 2 passes with > S:AKQJ H:xxx D:xxx C:xxx. > An anti-systemic 1S bid was unanimous -- although, at the time, for the > UK readership, it was also *illegal* to have such an agreement, at most > levels of competition :) > Not really a problem. It's too unfrequent to be called an agreement. But if you routinely open 3rd in hand on a strong 4-carder (say, AQJx or more), that should be written. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 23 14:43:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:43:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A29531.6090506@talktalk.net> References: <200902231157.n1NBv7lW005775@mail03.syd.optusnet.com.au> <49A29531.6090506@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49A2A7E4.4030705@ulb.ac.be> Nigel Guthrie a ?crit : > [Tony Musgrove] > > At last a bidding question to which I know the answer. > I (and Tim Seres) pass, and NS fail to find their slam. > > [Nigel] > Good idea. On reflection, I agree that Pass deserves full marks. > But does it get enough credibility ? For example, if responder is void of Hearts, he should be able to reason that we hold at least 9 total hearts (most probably 11 if his partner didn't bid NT), whence I "made something", whence they surely have some high contract to play. For this reason (and because many pairs play 2NT artificial over 2H, which makes other bids ambiguous as to heart length), I'm wondering whether 2H isn't the best try. But I still prefer to operate with 2NT (sound balanced raise), if any. It puts them in uncharted waters. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 23 15:26:35 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:26:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <49A2A3A5.4060309@ulb.ac.be> References: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> <49A270EF.9030008@ulb.ac.be> <000601c995aa$7853da30$68fb8e90$@no> <49A2A3A5.4060309@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001301c995c2$bbcae480$3360ad80$@no> On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > Sven Pran a ?crit : > > On Behalf Of Alain Gottcheiner > > > >> Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> > >>> But he MUST NEVER, EVER look at a player's hand in order to make a > >>> > > ruling > > > >>> affecting this player's call or play. > >>> > >>> > >> Hasn't it been said before, that deciding whether a contract was doubled > >> or not (in case of disagreement between players) will use the > >> (potential) doubler's hand as one of the main arguments of likelihood ? > >> Now, if the disagreement springs during the deal (like in : South : > >> what's the contract ? - East : 3SX - North : no, not doubled), the > >> ruling should be given before the play proceeds, and will iunfluence it. > >> > > > > The Director must in such a case ask the players to reconstruct their > > auction. I shall be very surprised if this proves impossible, but if it does > > I shall tell the players that they cannot complete the board in any normal > > way under the circumstances and that I consider both sides at fault. > > > > This means that unless they can reach an agreement they will both receive A- > > > > > Notice that, usually, the only dissesnsion would be over chether there > was a concludign double or not. > > Also notice that if you end up by saying they're all at fault and give > A-/A-, you're not following TFLB, because : > > 1) of course, one side has given the right version of the bidding, so > calling them both at fault is obviously wrong. > 2) L85 says you must give a decision to allow the play to continue ; > obviously, you aren't doing that. If they cannot agree on which contract they have reached then they have not reached any contract and consequently have no contract in which to play the board. It is not only a question of a possible concluding double; such a double must necessarily have been followed by three passes so a Director's ruling here would be to make at least four calls for the players. This is far beyond just saying whether a contract was doubled or not. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Feb 23 15:47:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:47:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] Defining normal au gratin In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <70E1765D-1F45-4433-B995-78299BAB24B3@starpower.net> On Feb 23, 2009, at 1:31 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Grattan Endicott, personal interpretation: > >> My personal interpretation of this is that a play that in >> the past would have been classed as normal for Mrs. G but >> irrational for an expert is now to be deemed 'inferior' for the >> expert. There is no prescribed limitation on the degree of >> inferiority, short of its being irrational for any class of player. > > Richard Hills, personal quibble: > > The current 2007 claim footnote does not solidly say, > > "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that > would be careless or inferior," > > but rather windily says, > > "For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, 'normal' includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved." > > Ergo, my personal interpretation is that "the class of player > involved" _is_ a prescribed limitation on the degree of > inferiority. In other words, if it's inferior enough, then it's not inferior. Say what? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From john at asimere.com Mon Feb 23 17:39:35 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:39:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <26689954CE2645F19D89C80C07B2DD56@noelf36449040c> Message-ID: <1D02AE1625D74DA38AAB7A1D8B1193B3@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel & Pamela" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 7:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > >Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. >>The bidding has gone: > >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>1C 1H Double ? > >>You, South, hold: > >>32 >>KJ8632 >>64 >>J32 > >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? > > 1S is forcing... ;-) I rather like 1S non-forcing :) John > > 4H. > > regards, > Noel > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please > advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. > This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, > legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, > retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. > DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act > 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the > department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: > http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.2/1965 - Release Date: > 02/21/09 15:36:00 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From adam at tameware.com Tue Feb 24 00:09:15 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 18:09:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > L12C1(e): In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all > or part of the following procedure in place of (c): > > (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a > non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred. > (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable. [PERIOD!] > > A while back on BLML, Adam Wildavsky argued that the phrase "had the > irregularity not occurred" should be understood for the offenders. > The WBFLC strongly rejected this interpretation in its Montreal > meeting August 27 2002: > > The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put his > view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "for a > non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred or, for the offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable *had the irregularity > not occurred*". It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that > on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the > Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to > the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason > to reconsider that decision. > > So, it did not get into the 2007 Laws. Or did it? The ACBL version > of the Laws has Adam's language incorporated. The Regulating > Authority may apply "all or part of the following..." That's all or > part, with no election authorized for any addition to the language. > We can't have RAs creating new laws. > > What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: > > Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long > hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push > and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would > quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is > adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders > get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. > > The lawmakers could have made this more clear by adding "in any > case" to (ii). > > The ACBL should be instructed by the WBF to issue an erratum > correcting the language in its edition and to fix it in future > printings. On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Marvin L French wrote: > > L12C1(e): In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all > or part of the following procedure in place of (c): > > (i) The score assigned in place of the actual score for a > non-offending side is the most favorable result that was likely had > the irregularity not occurred. > (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable. [PERIOD!] > > A while back on BLML, Adam Wildavsky argued that the phrase "had the > irregularity not occurred" should be understood for the offenders. > The WBFLC strongly rejected this interpretation in its Montreal > meeting August 27 2002: > > The interpretation of Law 12C2 was discussed. Mr. Wildavsky put his > view that this law should be interpreted as though it read "for a > non-offending side the most favorable result that was likely had the > irregularity not occurred or, for the offending side, the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable *had the irregularity > not occurred*". It was drawn to the attention of the Committee that > on a previous occasion the subject had been discussed and the > Committee had agreed that the law does not attach this limitation to > the adjustment for the offending side. The Committee found no reason > to reconsider that decision. > > So, it did not get into the 2007 Laws. Or did it? The ACBL version > of the Laws has Adam's language incorporated. The Regulating > Authority may apply "all or part of the following..." That's all or > part, with no election authorized for any addition to the language. > We can't have RAs creating new laws. > > What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: > > Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long > hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push > and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would > quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is > adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders > get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. > > The lawmakers could have made this more clear by adding "in any > case" to (ii). > > The ACBL should be instructed by the WBF to issue an erratum > correcting the language in its edition and to fix it in future > printings. Thanks for following up, Marvin! This conversation has been going on for at least 8 years, and I don't think we're any closer to a resolution. Here's a link to what I posted in 2005: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/2005-May/023732.html No one replied, but apparently silence did not imply consent. I have a lot more to say, but I want to take things one step at a time. Here's an excerpt from my 2005 post: ====== If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." ====== Is that the interpretation you favor? -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 24 00:08:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:08:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What happened at the table -> You, South, hold: 32 KJ8632 64 J32 Imps, dealer West, vulnerable East-West. WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1C 1H X 4H X Pass Pass Pass North-South -1100 Why it happened -> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Yu Ali Hudson 1C (1) 1H (2) X (3) 4H (4) X (5) Pass(6) Pass Pass North-South -1100 (7) (1) At the start of this Canberra Bridge Club teams match, system cards had been exchanged and pre-alerts given in the approved style. Ergo, Hashmat Ali's failure to alert my strong 1C opening was a trivial error. (2) Unperturbed by the trivial failure to alert the strong 1C, Li-Sheng Yu employed his partnership's standard defence to a strong 1C, the Wonder Bid (showing either a normal overcall in hearts, or short in hearts with support for the other three suits). Not alerted by Henry Hudson, see footnote (4). (3) Not alerted, because all doubles are self-alerting in Oz. Promising 8+ hcp, 4+ hearts and 2+ controls (A=2, K=1). (4) Terrible short-term memory, forgetting the explanation of system at the start of match, due to not being prompted by an alert of the strong 1C. (5) There is a flaw in the Ali-Hills methods (system notes emailed on request) in that when many world champions would recommend a negative or responsive or card-showing double -- as, for example, in this double of 4H -- the Ali-Hills methods use it as an old-fashioned penalty double. (6) Technically Henry Hudson's 4H was a pass-or-correct bid. But after enquiring about the East-West doubles, Li-Sheng Yu had sufficient AI to counterbalance the UI he had received from Henry Hudson's non-alert of his 1H Wonder Bid, so Li-Sheng Yu opted to cut his losses by passing. (7) The club Director (coincidentally also Chief Director of Australia) ruled that since the board happened at the beginning of the match, the trivial failure to alert the strong 1C was sufficiently significant an infraction as to require an adjusted score of 3NT, North-South -660. The Director also ruled that if this board had occurred towards the end of the match (when South then should have been fully aware that his opponents played unusual methods), then he would not have adjusted the score. 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 Feb 24 02:16:25 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:16:25 +1100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement. The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair of the ACBL Laws Commission, asked: [big snip] >Is that the interpretation you favor? Richard Hills, non-entity, replies: The interpretation I favour is that the Lawbook created by the Drafting Committee -- which included the ACBL representatives Ralph Cohen (deceased), Joan Gerard and Jeffrey Polisner, plus citizen-of-the-world William Schoder (Kojak) -- is the official English version of the Lawbook. The rule is that if there are any substantive differences when the Lawbook is translated into other languages, then the translated versions do not apply and the original English version does apply. There were a number of errors created when the official English version of the Lawbook was translated into the American language. See attached. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * * * The official 2007 Introduction, first paragraph: The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged. Players should be ready to accept gracefully any rectification or adjusted score awarded by the Director. The American translation error, ACBL Lawbook page xvii: The Scope of the Laws The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy when there is a departure from correct procedure. An offending player should be ready to pay any penalty or rectification graciously or to accept any adjusted score awarded by the Tournament Director. The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage. * * * The official 2007 Introduction, third paragraph, final sentence: Artificial bidding is a fact of life so an attempt has been made to solve problems, or to allow Regulating Authorities to solve problems, that arise when something goes wrong. The American translation error, ACBL Lawbook page iii: Artificial bidding is a fact of life, so an attempt has been made to solve problems or to allow Regulating Authorities to solve problems that arise. * * * The official 2007 Introduction, fifth paragraph, first sentence: Many headings present in the 1997 Laws have been removed in the interests of streamlining their appearance. The American translation error, ACBL Lawbook passim: "Chapter", "Part" and "Section" headings added. * * * The official 2007 Introduction, final paragraph, first sentence: For the avoidance of doubt, this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. The American translation error, ACBL Lawbook page iii: Note that this Introduction and the Definitions that follow form part of the Laws. [RJBH - If the Introduction is deemed to be a Law, under what authority does the ACBL change the wording and slightly change the meaning of sentences in the Introduction?] * * * The official 2007 Law 12C1(e)(ii): For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. The American translation error, ACBL Lawbook page 17: For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred. * * * The official 2007 Law 12C2(c): The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session. The American translation error, ACBL Lawbook page 18: The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant who obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant who obtains a session score that is less than 40% of the available matchpoints (or the equivalent in IMPs). Such contestants are awarded the percentage obtained (or the equivalent in IMPs) on the other boards of that session.* * In ACBL sanctioned events, when there is a non-offending and an offending contestant, the non-offending contestant receives the score specified by 12C2(c) above. Their opponents shall receive the difference between that score and 100%, regardless of their score on the other boards of that session. For example, if the non-offending contestant receives 64% on the adjusted deal, the offending contestant receives 36%. * * * The official 2007 Law 93C3(b) and footnote: With due notice given to the contestants a Regulating Authority may authorize the omission or modification of such stages as it wishes of the appeals process set out in these Laws.* * The Regulating Authority is responsible for compliance with any national law that may affect its action. The American footnote translation error, ACBL Lawbook page 137: 8. Law 93C1: A further appeal to the Regulating Authority (ACBL) may be allowed only as follows: a. On a point of law to and at the discretion of the ACBL Laws Commission. b. On an allegation of bias of a committee member or members to and at the discretion of the ACBL Appeals and Charges Committee. The appellant is required to present evidence that the bias was not known at the time of the hearing. c. The appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the decision of the Bridge Appeals Committee that heard the issue. 9. Law 93C3(a): Except as noted in 8 above, the responsibility of dealing finally with any appeal of a Director's decision is that of the tournament's bridge appeals committee. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 24 03:32:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:32:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >> >> What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: >> >> Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long >> hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push >> and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would >> quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is >> adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders >> get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. >> +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, as agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of the law. I do view it as of some importance that copies of the ACBL book, escaping from Zone 2, should not mislead those outside as to the correct wording of the law. Effectively this part of the law has not changed since 1987 and the addition to it of the words "had the irregularity not occurred" in 12C1(e)(ii) would have brought about a significant change in the law; it was discussed and we decided against it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 24 03:41:26 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:41:26 +1100 Subject: [blml] Defining normal au gratin [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <70E1765D-1F45-4433-B995-78299BAB24B3@starpower.net> Message-ID: Eric Landau, c'est watt: >In other words, if it's inferior enough, then it's not inferior. >Say what? Richard Hills, pedant: In the verb form, X is inferior to Y, there is no lower limit. In the noun form, X is normal but inferior, there is a lower limit in that: (a) X cannot be abnormal and ridiculous, or (b) X cannot be abnormal and irrational, or (c) X cannot be abnormal and irrational and unLawful. Watt's the probe, Lem? 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 Feb 24 05:12:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:12:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Request for record keeping help [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <694eadd40902192205n7ec852b7i48a0fbcec9571ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Adam Wildavsky tracked: >As chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee I've started a >project to compile a database of our decisions over the past decade >or so. Several NAC members have volunteered to help. We're tracking >things like who served, who appeared, whether the AC's ruling was >different than the TD's, and the category of the case. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: As a programmer, Adam will be well aware of the GIGO principle, Garbage In, Garbage Out. The tracking project will be of limited use unless the correct metrics are measured, for example: (a) Was the TD decision consistent with the 1997 Lawbook? (b) Was the AC decision consistent with the 1997 Lawbook? (c) Was the TD decision changed by the screener? (d) If the TD decision and the AC decision were both identical, were they both wrong or both right? (e) On how many occasions did the National Authority incorrectly refuse to overturn a ridiculous or unLawful AC decision? (f) On how many occasions did the Chair of the National Authority incorrectly refuse to convene a meeting of the National Authority? Many years ago, when the late Don Oakie was the Chairman of the ACBL National Authority, an AC perpetrated an unLawful decision at a North America Bridge Championship. All the other onsite members of the National Authority (including the late Edgar Kaplan) pleaded with Don Oakie to convene a meeting, but he refused. A subsequent Bridge World editorial suggested that the ACBL move away from the American Congressional model of all-powerful chairmen. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 24 05:42:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:42:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] defining normal -- statistical versus "without abberation" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:34:17 -0500, Robert Frick wrote: > SHORT VERSION > "normal" in L70 and L71 should be interpreted as meaning "not irrational, > not convoluted, not bizarre, etc." (given declarer's awareness of the > hand > as evidenced by the claiming statement, but that's a different issue). > Deliberately misplaying a hand (with a goal of not winning) would be rational but not normal. I can't decide if pulling the wrong card from hand counts as rational or irrational -- the thinking process is right, except for brain not getting the fingers to do the right thing. But again it is definitely not normal. No one includes these as normal plays when using L70 and L71. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 24 07:17:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:17:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary, page 18: >>Law 81C3 >>The intention expressed here is to strive for equitable results even >>if the players do not notice an irregularity or do not care about it. >>When a revoke goes unnoticed but (later) the TD becomes aware of it >>(for example he hears about it from a spectator), he needs to use Law >>64C if that revoke changes the result. If he is in doubt about a >>result handed in, he needs to take action. Robert Frick: >Thanks for finding this, Richard. Isn't this another example of Ton >going beyond the stated law in his commentary? Richard Hills: No, in this case I would argue that Ton is expressing a personal opinion about how the Drafting Committee intended Law 81C3 to be interpreted. Given that Ton served on the Drafting Committee, this may perhaps just barely possibly be an informed personal opinion. :-) Robert Frick: >Or let's be practical. George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like 'Marshal Petain was a true patriot', 'The Soviet press is the freest in the world', 'The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution', are almost always made with intent to deceive." Richard Hills: "Let's be practical" translates into English "As TD, I choose not to obey Laws which are contrary to my principles and/or involve what I believe to be unnecessary hard work." Robert Frick: >It works pretty well in a high-level tournament. But that is precisely >the place where a director would want to exercise his right to make >this change. More than one person has said they won't follow this as a >duty in a club game, I think. Richard Hills: More than one person has the strange belief that it is better not to fix any infractions via Law 81C3 rather than fix 10% of possible infractions, since that leaves the 90% residue disadvantaged. But surely a 10% improvement in equity is better than a nil improvement. George Orwell similarly refuted do-nothingism: "Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end." 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 Tue Feb 24 07:55:22 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:55:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan wrote: > +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, > as agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated > by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin > says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of > the > law. ACBLLC minutes, San Francisco, Nov 24, 2007: 12C1(e)(ii) is to be interpreted such that the words "had the irregularity not occurred" are inserted between "probable" and the period ending the sentence. It seems to me that this is more than an ACBL internal matter. Chip Martel, chairman of the ACBLLC reminds me of something I have long deplored. Citing the by-laws of the ACBL, he writes: ########### The ACBL Laws Commission is the sole authority for setting the laws in ACBL events (the WBF has no formal say, though we try to conform to their version of the laws in most cases). In the case of Law 12C1(e) (ii) we considered it essential to provide a clearer context for " the most unfavorable result that was at all probable" ########### The ACBL joined the World Bridge Federation and thereby agreed to abide by its by-laws, which I quote: 2.1 Organizations A National Contract Bridge Organization (NBO) shall: d. undertake to comply with the Constitution and By-Laws of the WBF 8.8 Laws Committee The function and duty of this Committee shall be to consider and take account of all matters relating to the international laws of bridge. The Committee shall make whatever changes to the laws it deems appropriate...The Committee shall interpret the laws; shall periodically review the laws; and at least once each decade shall make a comprehensive study and updating of the entire laws structure. ########### Nothing about delegating this responsibility to NBOs. If the ACBL does not want to acknowledge that the WBFLC is the sole body with authority to create and interpret the Laws, it should quit the WBF. ########## 2.4 Suspension b. A member may be suspended...if the Executive concludes, in its discretion, that the member is not conforming with the requirements for eligibility for membership in the WBF. ########## Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 24 09:00:00 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:00:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] 25A In-Reply-To: <001301c995c2$bbcae480$3360ad80$@no> References: <000201c993b1$71c6fad0$5554f070$@no> <000501c9946a$66d689b0$34839d10$@no> <49A270EF.9030008@ulb.ac.be> <000601c995aa$7853da30$68fb8e90$@no> <49A2A3A5.4060309@ulb.ac.be> <001301c995c2$bbcae480$3360ad80$@no> Message-ID: <49A3A900.4040506@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > If they cannot agree on which contract they have reached then they have not > reached any contract and consequently have no contract in which to play the > board. > I don't see any law that allows us to say this. Also, even if you could, not reaching any contract isn't a registered infraction, so you can't consider them both at fault. The probability that one of the sides bid according to the laws and told the truth in response to your enquiries is about 98%. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 24 09:14:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:14:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A3AC79.6010108@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > (7) The club Director (coincidentally also Chief Director of > Australia) ruled that since the board happened at the beginning > of the match, the trivial failure to alert the strong 1C was > sufficiently significant an infraction as to require an adjusted > score of 3NT, North-South -660. The Director also ruled that if > this board had occurred towards the end of the match (when South > then should have been fully aware that his opponents played > unusual methods), then he would not have adjusted the score. > > AG : provided there had been some deal where this opening happened, and even so, it's hard to find a law that the overcaller did infringe (74 ?). From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 24 13:30:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:30:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:17:27 -0500, wrote: > Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary, page 18: > >>> Law 81C3 >>> The intention expressed here is to strive for equitable results even >>> if the players do not notice an irregularity or do not care about it. >>> When a revoke goes unnoticed but (later) the TD becomes aware of it >>> (for example he hears about it from a spectator), he needs to use Law >>> 64C if that revoke changes the result. If he is in doubt about a >>> result handed in, he needs to take action. > > Robert Frick: > >> Thanks for finding this, Richard. Isn't this another example of Ton >> going beyond the stated law in his commentary? > > Richard Hills: > > No, in this case I would argue that Ton is expressing a personal > opinion about how the Drafting Committee intended Law 81C3 to be > interpreted. Given that Ton served on the Drafting Committee, this may > perhaps just barely possibly be an informed personal opinion. :-) > > Robert Frick: > >> Or let's be practical. > > George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): > > "Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That > is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows > his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like > 'Marshal Petain was a true patriot', 'The Soviet press is the freest in > the world', 'The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution', are almost > always made with intent to deceive." > > Richard Hills: > > "Let's be practical" translates into English "As TD, I choose not to > obey Laws which are contrary to my principles and/or involve what I > believe to be unnecessary hard work." William Shoder 2/19: thank you Grattan. I thought we had put this baby to bed along time ago, but as with so many other things there would be less to posture about and "interpret" on BLML if it simply accepted what is the workable situation. Kojak From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 24 15:05:04 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:05:04 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A3FE90.6020700@talktalk.net> [Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary, page 18: Law 81C3] The intention expressed here is to strive for equitable results even if the players do not notice an irregularity or do not care about it. When a revoke goes unnoticed but (later) the TD becomes aware of it, for example he hears about it from a spectator), he needs to use Law 64C if that revoke changes the result. If he is in doubt about a result handed in, he needs to take action. [Richard Hills] "Let's be practical" translates into English "As TD, I choose not to obey Laws which are contrary to my principles and/or involve what I believe to be unnecessary hard work." [SNIP] More than one person has the strange belief that it is better not to fix any infractions via Law 81C3 rather than fix 10% of possible infractions, since that leaves the 90% residue disadvantaged. But surely a 10% improvement in equity is better than a nil improvement. [Nigel] Ton Kooijman's commentary is welcome! Unfortunately, directors won't consult it for every case. Hence, IMO, law-makers should also clarify the English, *in-place* in the law-book itself. Until that happens, directors (and players) will continue to break the law -- and rationalise it in the way that BLMLers have done, in this thread. I like Richard's defence of L81C3. I agree that some justice is better than none. Why does Ton Kooijman write *later*. (Admittedly, he did put the word in parenthesis). Why shouldn't the director correct observed infractions, *immediately*? For example, in the case of failure to follow suit, prompt director intervention could prevent the generation of a worse infraction (eg revoke) or more infractions (eg multiple revokes)? What law justifies delay? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 24 15:04:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:04:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:32:19 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:09 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >>> >>> What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: >>> >>> Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long >>> hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push >>> and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would >>> quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is >>> adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders >>> get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. >>> > +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, > as agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated > by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin > says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of the > law. Actually, there is, at this point in time, a 0% chance for the event 'responder passing 3H'. On another day, responder might not bid 3S. A different player might not bid 3S. Had responder had something different for lunch, he might not have bid 3S. But on that day, that player, in that situation, bid 3S. So 3H down 2 wasn't possible. Same thing if declarer misplayed the hand or took a wrong guess. On another day, he might have made 3S. If he had something different for lunch, he might have made 3S. So if you think you can find some way of making the 'responder passing 3H' have a positive probability, then '3S making 3' can positive probability. This holds for both subjective and objective probabilities, though the argument for each would be different and it is easier to argue by example. You can talk about the probability of Obama winning the election IF the economy hadn't nose-dived; you can talk about the probability of Obama being president IF McCain had picked a better running mate. But you can't talk about the probability of Obama winning the election if everything was exactly the same. (Or, if you do, that probability is 1.) And if you just ask the probability of Obama winning the election, you aren't making sense -- you need an "if something was different" to assign probabilities meaningfully to determined events. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 24 16:23:29 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:23:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> Richard Hills: More than one person has the strange belief that it is better not to fix any infractions via Law 81C3 rather than fix 10% of possible infractions, since that leaves the 90% residue disadvantaged. But surely a 10% improvement in equity is better than a nil improvement. [DALB] Until now it was close, but no longer - I hereby declare the winner of the 2009 Oscar for The Most Abject Nonsense Written About The Laws to be Richard Hills. I also nominate him, without fear of vitiation, for a Lifetime Award in this category. It is blindingly obvious that if a ten-table tournament is to be conducted on the basis that all entrants are subject to the same playing conditions, it would be at best absurd and at worst criminal for a Director, acting under Law 81C3, to scrutinize one table of the ten involved in that tournament and ignore the others - yet this would lead to a "10% improvement in equity" It is only slightly less obvious that to have a peripatetic Director going from table to table fixing only those errors that he observes would be equally absurd, yet it would also lead to a "10% improvement in equity". Of course, whereas either procedure would lead to a 10% alteration in something, it would lead to a vast diminution of equity, and no one even irrational, let alone careless or inferior, would take part in such a tournament. David Burn London, England From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 24 16:51:12 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:51:12 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> References: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> Message-ID: <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> [David Burn] Until now it was close, but no longer - I hereby declare the winner of the 2009 Oscar for The Most Abject Nonsense Written About The Laws to be Richard Hills. I also nominate him, without fear of vitiation, for a Lifetime Award in this category. It is blindingly obvious that if a ten-table tournament is to be conducted on the basis that all entrants are subject to the same playing conditions, it would be at best absurd and at worst criminal for a Director, acting under Law 81C3, to scrutinize one table of the ten involved in that tournament and ignore the others - yet this would lead to a "10% improvement in equity" It is only slightly less obvious that to have a peripatetic Director going from table to table fixing only those errors that he observes would be equally absurd, yet it would also lead to a "10% improvement in equity". Of course, whereas either procedure would lead to a 10% alteration in something, it would lead to a vast diminution of equity, and no one even irrational, let alone careless or inferior, would take part in such a tournament. [Nigel] On the basis of this contribution, I nominate David Burn as the first recipient of his award :) IMO, the perpatetic director who policed observed infractions would reduce law-breaking by more than 10%. Admittedly, habitual law-breakers might resent this; but their victims would be grateful. I suppose that this could decrease "equity" (in some arcane meaning of the word) but the vast increase in real justice would more than compensate. IMO, most non-experts would feel safer in such an environment. From john at asimere.com Tue Feb 24 17:07:09 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:07:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > [David Burn] > Until now it was close, but no longer - I hereby declare the winner of the > 2009 Oscar for The Most Abject Nonsense Written About The Laws to be > Richard > Hills. I also nominate him, without fear of vitiation, for a Lifetime > Award > in this category. > It is blindingly obvious that if a ten-table tournament is to be conducted > on the basis that all entrants are subject to the same playing conditions, > it would be at best absurd and at worst criminal for a Director, acting > under Law 81C3, to scrutinize one table of the ten involved in that > tournament and ignore the others - yet this would lead to a "10% > improvement > in equity" > It is only slightly less obvious that to have a peripatetic Director going > from table to table fixing only those errors that he observes would be > equally absurd, yet it would also lead to a "10% improvement in equity". > Of course, whereas either procedure would lead to a 10% alteration in > something, it would lead to a vast diminution of equity, and no one even > irrational, let alone careless or inferior, would take part in such a > tournament. > > [Nigel] > On the basis of this contribution, I nominate David Burn as the first > recipient of his award :) IMO, the perpatetic director who policed > observed infractions would reduce law-breaking by more than 10%. > Admittedly, habitual law-breakers might resent this; but their victims > would be grateful. I suppose that this could decrease "equity" (in some > arcane meaning of the word) but the vast increase in real justice would > more than compensate. IMO, most non-experts would feel safer in such an > environment. > > I think I'll start wandering round the floor carrying a loaded shotgun. David would probably help me decide which cases I notice are appropriate for use of said instrument. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 24 18:00:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:00:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:32:19 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "..... the marble eyelids are not wet >> If it could weep it could arise and go." >> ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) >> "When there are no tears in the eyes >> the pain is inside" >> (Child sitting in the rubble of >> her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) >> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:09 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >>>> >>>> What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: >>>> >>>> Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long >>>> hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push >>>> and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would >>>> quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is >>>> adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders >>>> get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. >>>> >> +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, >> as agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated >> by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin >> says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of the >> law. > > > Actually, there is, at this point in time, a 0% chance for the event > 'responder passing 3H'. On another day, responder might not bid 3S. A > different player might not bid 3S. Had responder had something different > for lunch, he might not have bid 3S. But on that day, that player, in that > situation, bid 3S. So 3H down 2 wasn't possible. > > Same thing if declarer misplayed the hand or took a wrong guess. On > another day, he might have made 3S. If he had something different for > lunch, he might have made 3S. So if you think you can find some way of > making the 'responder passing 3H' have a positive probability, then '3S > making 3' can positive probability. > +=+ I do not know what that all means. We are going to take away the table score illegally obtained and substitute adjusted scores of 2S +110 for the non-offending side and 3H-200 for the offending side. This is in accordance with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ziffbridge at t-online.de Tue Feb 24 18:05:19 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 18:05:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49A428CF.4080709@t-online.de> John (MadDog) Probst schrieb: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:51 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> [Nigel] >> On the basis of this contribution, I nominate David Burn as the first >> recipient of his award :) IMO, the perpatetic director who policed >> observed infractions would reduce law-breaking by more than 10%. >> Admittedly, habitual law-breakers might resent this; but their victims >> would be grateful. I suppose that this could decrease "equity" (in some >> arcane meaning of the word) but the vast increase in real justice would >> more than compensate. IMO, most non-experts would feel safer in such an >> environment. >> >> > I think I'll start wandering round the floor carrying a loaded shotgun. > David would probably help me decide which cases I notice are appropriate for > use of said instrument. >> Even better, he could carry your ammunition. Without a lot of extra rounds you won't get past the seating, let alone round 1. Best regards Matthias From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 24 20:25:03 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:25:03 +0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49A4498F.3090107@talktalk.net> [Marvin French] Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. [Grattan Endicott] +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, as agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of the law. I do view it as of some importance that copies of the ACBL book, escaping from Zone 2, should not mislead those outside as to the correct wording of the law. Effectively this part of the law has not changed since 1987 and the addition to it of the words "had the irregularity not occurred" in 12C1(e)(ii) would have brought about a significant change in the law; it was discussed and we decided against it. [Nigel] Marvin's example ruling seems fair to me, as a player. Have the ACBL weakened 12C1e slightly, by selecting *parts* it? The full version of 12C1e seems robust. Unfortunately, weaker and less wise regulators have adopted the 12C1c fudge, designed neither to deter the law-breaker nor to provide redress for the victim. [TNLB 12C1c] (c) In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect the probabilities of a number of potential results. [TNLB 12C1e] (e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all *or part* of the following procedure in place of (c): From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 24 20:33:22 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:33:22 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> [Marvin] Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. [Robert] Actually, there is, at this point in time, a 0% chance for the event 'responder passing 3H'. On another day, responder might not bid 3S. A different player might not bid 3S. Had responder had something different for lunch, he might not have bid 3S. But on that day, that player, in that situation, bid 3S. So 3H down 2 wasn't possible. Same thing if declarer misplayed the hand or took a wrong guess. On another day, he might have made 3S. If he had something different for lunch, he might have made 3S. So if you think you can find some way of making the 'responder passing 3H' have a positive probability, then '3S making 3' can positive probability. This holds for both subjective and objective probabilities, though the argument for each would be different and it is easier to argue by example. You can talk about the probability of Obama winning the election IF the economy hadn't nose-dived; you can talk about the probability of Obama being president IF McCain had picked a better running mate. But you can't talk about the probability of Obama winning the election if everything was exactly the same. (Or, if you do, that probability is 1.) And if you just ask the probability of Obama winning the election, you aren't making sense -- you need an "if something was different" to assign probabilities meaningfully to determined events. [Grattan] +=+ I do not know what that all means. We are going to take away the table score illegally obtained and substitute adjusted scores of ?2S +110 for the non-offending side and 3H-200 for the offending side. This is in accordance with the law. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ [Jerry] Grattan, I don't understand your confusion. Try reading it one more time. I find Robert clear and correct. (Is it crystal clear to me only because I do probability research almost every day?) Perhaps, if on rereading it, you are still confused, please specify the word or sentence that causes your confusion. Everyone agrees that had there been no irregularity, the auction would have been 1S-P-2S-P; P-P. With the irregularity, 3H was not a possible contract, because the NOS bid 3S. So whether there was an irregularity or not, 3H was an impossible contract. Of all of the contracts with zero probability, how do Marv and Grattan both choose 3H? Grattan even says it is only option that is in accordance with the law. How do they reasonably offer 3H as a possibility when we know for certain that 3S would then be bid? Has no one mentioned the possibility of a second irregularity? It seems that 4H is more reasonable. The hesitator should not be allowed to bid as if his values have already been shown by his hesitation. If Grattan and Marv had offered 4H down 3, that would seem to have some merit: 4H is a possible contract, but 3H is not. The contract of 4H certainly has positive probability had the second irregularity not occurred. I also wish someone would answer Adam's question: [Adam] No one replied, but apparently silence did not imply consent. I have a lot more to say, but I want to take things one step at a time. Here's an excerpt from my 2005 post: ====== If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, then what is? From some of your examples you seem to suggest we should understand "Had the irregularity not occurred or had the NOS bid and played to best advantage after the irregularity." ====== Is that the interpretation you favor? "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. [Jerry] Even now, can no one answer Adam's question? If it cannot be answered, I have to agree with Adam and Robert. Their positions seem clear, and no refutation has even been attempted as far as I can see. Perhaps the following point (Zellner, University of Chicago) will help your thinking: "All probabilities are actually conditional probabilities." If you cannot specify the conditions for your probabilities, then you are probably talking nonsense. Adam made a similar point when he said "It's meaningless without a modifying clause." Jerry Fusselman From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 24 20:38:46 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:38:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A428CF.4080709@t-online.de> References: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> <49A428CF.4080709@t-online.de> Message-ID: <49A44CC6.5040306@talktalk.net> [John MadDog Probst] I think I'll start wandering round the floor carrying a loaded shotgun. David would probably help me decide which cases I notice are appropriate for use of said instrument. [Matthias Berghaus] Even better, he could carry your ammunition. Without a lot of extra rounds you won't get past the seating, let alone round 1. [Nigel] Matthias may be exaggerating slightly but if his estimate is a realistic about the frequency of infractions, then mine is pessimistic about the benefits of proactive directing :) From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 24 20:47:48 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:47:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:00:21 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > > >> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:32:19 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "..... the marble eyelids are not wet >>> If it could weep it could arise and go." >>> ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) >>> "When there are no tears in the eyes >>> the pain is inside" >>> (Child sitting in the rubble of >>> her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) >>> ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:09 PM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >>>>> >>>>> What is the effect of the correct language? Here is an example: >>>>> >>>>> Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long >>>>> hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push >>>>> and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would >>>>> quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is >>>>> adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders >>>>> get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. >>>>> >>> +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, >>> as agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated >>> by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin >>> says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of the >>> law. >> >> >> Actually, there is, at this point in time, a 0% chance for the event >> 'responder passing 3H'. On another day, responder might not bid 3S. A >> different player might not bid 3S. Had responder had something different >> for lunch, he might not have bid 3S. But on that day, that player, in >> that >> situation, bid 3S. So 3H down 2 wasn't possible. >> >> Same thing if declarer misplayed the hand or took a wrong guess. On >> another day, he might have made 3S. If he had something different for >> lunch, he might have made 3S. So if you think you can find some way of >> making the 'responder passing 3H' have a positive probability, then '3S >> making 3' can positive probability. >> > +=+ I do not know what that all means. We are going to take away the > table score illegally obtained and substitute adjusted scores of 2S +110 > for the non-offending side and 3H-200 for the offending side. This is in > accordance with the law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ It may be the recommended practice. But to derive that from the law, you would have to decide there was some probability of 3H-200 (if there had been a hesitation). The problem is, we know with 100% certainty that if there was a hesitation, 3H would not have been played. If you find a way that you think allows you to derive that (assign a positive probability to an event that did not occur), I am almost positive you will run into the problem on other hands that (2) there is a probability of 3S making 3 if there was a hesitation, even though 3S actually went down 1 when played. I assume this doesn't fit recommended practice. So the correct assignment of probabilities doesn't fit the recommended practice, and some misguided method of assigning probabilities also won't fit the recommended practice. Am I missing something? From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Feb 24 21:31:35 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:31:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> References: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <001601c996be$e36f3ac0$aa4db040$@com> >IMO, the perpatetic director who policed observed infractions would reduce law-breaking by more than 10%. Admittedly, habitual law-breakers might resent this; but their victims would be grateful. I suppose that this could decrease "equity" (in some arcane meaning of the word) but the vast increase in real justice would more than compensate. IMO, most non-experts would feel safer in such an environment. [DALB] The meaning of the word "equity" is not "arcane" in the least: it means in this context that whatever the Laws are, they are applied with equal strictness (or equal laxity) to every competitor. That is, it means: The quality of being equal or fair; fairness, impartiality; evenhanded dealing. [Oxford English Dictionary] Now, a Director fixated on one table cannot (ex def) do this; a Director wandering around ten tables may succeed in doing it, but only by chance, and the odds against this would be very large indeed. One imagines a group of ten people attempting to pass a spelling test. One person is accompanied by a qualified examiner, who says whether his charge has passed or failed; the other nine are asked at the end of the test "How did you think you did?", and if they say "I think I passed", they are considered to have done so even if they cannot be bothered to spell "peripatetic" correctly despite this already having been done for them. "Take your wild justice," said Chesterton's Father Brown, "or our dull legality, but in the name of Almighty God, let there be an equal lawlessness or an equal law." He knew whereof he spoke. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 24 21:53:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:53:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Barry Cohen, The Life of the Party, pages 106-107: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Israel's second President after Chaim Weizmann, was in office from 1952 to 1963. An old left-wing kibbutznik himself, he eschewed the trappings of office and remained in his small second- floor flat in Jerusalem. This created certain problems because few countries have more need for security than Israel. Without a Presidential residence, with appropriate security built into it, the security forces had to settle for a small sentry box at floor level out on the street. At all hours of the day or night a lone sergeant sat or stood in the sentry box guarding Israel's President. Amos Oz, one of the nation's leading writers and an old family friend of the Ben Zvi's, then only a teenager, was returning home one evening from a youth meeting and had to pass the President's flat. He glanced into the sentry box out of curiosity and did a complete double-take. There sitting in the sentry box with a sergeant's cap on was the President himself. "Mr President?" Amos enquired, too surprised to understand what was going on. "Shoosh Amos, don't make a fuss. The sergeant's wife is having a baby. He's gone to the hospital to see her. Where else should he be at a time like this?" "But why are you here?" asked Amos still bemused. "I'm looking after me until he gets back. He's absent without leave, silly boy. Now go home and give my love to your mother and father." * * * Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs Dealer: North, Vul: None The bidding has gone WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass(1) 1S Pass Pass 2C Pass ? (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp.* You, West, hold: KT87 A86 K975 K9 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? 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 * In Aussie tradition there is no such thing as a bad 12 hcp. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 24 21:59:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:59:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49A4498F.3090107@talktalk.net> Message-ID: From: "Nigel Guthrie" > [Marvin French] > Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long > hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the > push and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side > would quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is > adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders > get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. > [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ I do not want to enter into ACBL internal matters. However, as > agreed by the WBF Drafting Subcommittee and promulgated > by the World Bridge Federation, the law 12C1(e)(ii) is as Marvin > says. Furthermore his example illustrates correctly the effect of > the law. >> [Nigel] > Marvin's example ruling seems fair to me, as a player. Have the > ACBL weakened 12C1e slightly, by selecting *parts* it? No, they have weakened it by adding, "had the irregularity not occurred" at the end of (ii). The effect is that offenders do not get hit with a bad result that was at all probable if it would not have been possible in the absence of their irregularity. > The full version of 12C1e seems robust. Too robust, as the illegal addition means possibly more favorable treatment for the offenders > [TNLB 12C1c] > (c) In order to do equity, and unless the Regulating Authority > forbids it, an assigned adjusted score may be weighted to reflect > the probabilities of a number of potential results >Unfortunately, weaker and less wise regulators have adopted the >12C1c fudge, designed neither to deter the law-breaker nor to >provide redress for the victim. Weaker, no, less wise, yes. Weighting possible results to reflect their various probabilities is an impossible task for most Directors, and means that different rulings will be imposed for identical irregularities. (Probabilites assigned may be different for different calculators or for players of different "calibre.") This "crystal ball" approach can lead to charges of favoritism, general bias, or incompetence. Players want simple laws that are easily applied, and this one doesn't pass that test. In the previous laws L12C1 could not be applied by Directors, only an Appeals Committee (but that was ignored in a quasi-legal maneuver). I think that was a good idea, as calculating probabilities is best done by a group of experienced players. The new Laws permit application of that law by any Director, which would be disastrous in my part of the world. The ACBL has been very wise in opting out of it. > [TNLB 12C1e] > (e) In its discretion the Regulating Authority may apply all *or > part* > of the following procedure in place of (c): "Part" means that the score may not be adjusted for the non-offenders, as when they committed some blunder that cost them a good score. L12C( b): If, subsequent to an irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its damage by a serious errror* (unrelated to the infraction) or by a wild or gambling action, it does not receive such relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only. *WBF minutes of Oct 8 2008 say that the "calibre" of player must be taken into account when deciding whether an error was "serious." This last sentence's bureaucratise has been interpreted as saying that some serious error in the play of the non-offenders will not be included in the play assumed for the offenders' score adjustment. To me it says just the opposite, which is that only factors related to the irregularity are to be taken into account. If the non-offending side revoked to let an illegal 4S contract make, then they keep the result while the offending side gets a score for a 3S contract. With no revoke assumed??!! The revoke was not related to the irregularity, so how can it be justifiable to change the assumed play of the cards in an adjusted score? Ahem, that's a penalty, not a "rectification." Moreover, a revoke is an obvious "serious error" for anyone. Other very bad plays are called "serious errors" only if the calibre of the erring player is high enough to regard it as "serious." Here we have another case in which identical irregularities may receive differerent score adjustments. Players want simple laws, and this one would be much simpler (and fairer) if the actual play of the cards is not changed in an adjusted score when the play had nothing to do with the irregularity. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Feb 24 22:16:27 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:16:27 +0000 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c996be$e36f3ac0$aa4db040$@com> References: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> <49A41770.7090700@talktalk.net> <001601c996be$e36f3ac0$aa4db040$@com> Message-ID: <49A463AB.7050108@talktalk.net> [David Burn] The meaning of the word "equity" is not "arcane" in the least: it means in this context that whatever the Laws are, they are applied with equal strictness (or equal laxity) to every competitor. That is, it means: The quality of being equal or fair; fairness, impartiality; evenhanded dealing. [Oxford English Dictionary] [Nigel] I think that Bridge lawmakers use the world "Equity" to mean (roughly) "restoration of the status quo". But I too prefer the ordinary dictionary meaning :) [David Burn] Now, a Director fixated on one table cannot (ex def) do this; a Director wandering around ten tables may succeed in doing it, but only by chance, and the odds against this would be very large indeed. One imagines a group of ten people attempting to pass a spelling test. One person is accompanied by a qualified examiner, who says whether his charge has passed or failed; the other nine are asked at the end of the test "How did you think you did?", and if they say "I think I passed", they are considered to have done so even if they cannot be bothered to spell "peripatetic" correctly despite this already having been done for them. [Nige2] Mostly of doubtful relevance because I was talking about *peripatetic* directors; but I apologise for my spelling :) [David "Take your wild justice," said Chesterton's Father Brown, "or our dull legality, but in the name of Almighty God, let there be an equal lawlessness or an equal law." He knew whereof he spoke. [Nige3] IMO, laws that require a minimum of subjective judgement are fairer. But David seems also to believe that society would be more equitable without policemen. Even if David is right, his main beef is not with me but with the law-makers who wrote L81C3 (and I still believe some supervision is better than none) :) From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 24 22:35:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:35:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Jerry Fusselman" [Marvin] Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. [Robert] - snip of language I don't understand - Marv [Grattan] +=+ I do not know what that all means. We are going to take away the table score illegally obtained and substitute adjusted scores of 2S +110 for the non-offending side and 3H-200 for the offending side. This is in accordance with the law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [Jerry] Everyone agrees that had there been no irregularity, the auction would have been 1S-P-2S-P; P-P. With the irregularity, 3H was not a possible contract, because the NOS bid 3S. [Marv] Baloney. It was a possible contract when it was bid. [Adam] ====== If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, then what is? [Marv] The most unfavorable result that was at all probable following the irregularity. [Adam} "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's meaningless without a modifying clause. [Marv] "had the irregularity not occured" is subjunctive, but it's not in the official version of L12(e)(ii). The sentence is quite understandable as-is in its context. The context starts with L12C1 (a)...When after an irregularity is empowered by these Laws to award an assigned adjusted score, he does so. Such a score replaces the score obtained in play. That is what is to be "understood" in all that follows in L12C1. L12(e)(ii) continues that instruction with For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. No subjunctive, no missing information, just a straightfoward statement. One could add superfluously "under the circumstances," "following the irregularity," or "in any case," but that is unnecessary for those who accept unadorned plain language. [Jerry] Perhaps the following point (Zellner, University of Chicago) will help your thinking: "All probabilities are actually conditional probabilities." If you cannot specify the conditions for your probabilities, then you are probably talking nonsense. Adam made a similar point when he said "It's meaningless without a modifying clause." [Marv] I do not need help with my thinking in this matter, thanks anyway. The condition is provided in the first sentence of L12C1(a). "When...." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA Member, ISPE (www.thethousand.com) www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Feb 24 22:47:04 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 13:47:04 -0800 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: Richard Hills wrote: > > Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs > Dealer: North, Vul: None > > The bidding has gone > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass(1) 1S > Pass Pass 2C Pass > ? > > (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat > matchpoint > pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 > hcp.* > > You, West, hold: > > KT87 > A86 > K975 > K9 > > What call do you make? 2NT > What other calls do you consider making? 3NT, trapping partner. The only excuse is that these points are worth more than 13 under the circumstances. At my club no one leads partner's suit in this situation, so I would expect a heart lead and would not consider 3NT. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Feb 24 22:55:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 08:55:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000301c99693$d91068e0$8b313aa0$@com> Message-ID: David Burn: >Until now it was close, but no longer - I hereby declare the winner of the >2009 Oscar for The Most Abject Nonsense Written About The Laws to be >Richard Hills. I also nominate him, without fear of vitiation, for a >Lifetime Award in this category. > >It is blindingly obvious that if a ten-table tournament is to be conducted >on the basis that all entrants are subject to the same playing conditions, >it would be at best absurd and at worst criminal for a Director, acting >under Law 81C3, to scrutinize one table of the ten involved in that >tournament and ignore the others - yet this would lead to a "10% >improvement in equity". [snip] Richard Hills: It is blindingly obviously that if the Director detects, during scoring, an obvious vulnerability error, the Director should not correct that error, since that would be absurd and at worst criminal in vitiating the basis that all entrants are subject to the same playing conditions, and other entrants are not having their non-obvious non-vulnerability scoring errors corrected. :-) :-) :-) Incidentally, two years after winning the Oscar for Best Actress in Monster's Ball, Halle Berry received the Golden Raspberry for Worst Actress in Catwoman, and gamely accepted her Razzie in person. So, my 2009 awards of Golden Richards for Worst Blmler are: Inequitably accurate explanation of the Laws: Grattan Endicott Inequitable understanding of English grammar: Robert Frick Totally inequitable laugh-out-loud wit: David Burn Very inequitable cool responses to insults: Sven Pran Somewhat inequitable point-by-point refuting: Maciej Bystry And my 2009 award of the Diamond Richard for Best Blmler is: Equitably provoking intelligent responses: Herman De Wael 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 Feb 24 23:27:37 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:27:37 +0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49A47459.3000601@talktalk.net> *WBF minutes of Oct 8 2008 say that the "calibre" of player must be taken into account when deciding whether an error was "serious." This last sentence's bureaucratise has been interpreted as saying that some serious error in the play of the non-offenders will not be included in the play assumed for the offenders' score adjustment. To me it says just the opposite, which is that only factors related to the irregularity are to be taken into account. If the non-offending side revoked to let an illegal 4S contract make, then they keep the result while the offending side gets a score for a 3S contract. With no revoke assumed??!! The revoke was not related to the irregularity, so how can it be justifiable to change the assumed play of the cards in an adjusted score? Ahem, that's a penalty, not a "rectification." Moreover, a revoke is an obvious "serious error" for anyone. Other very bad plays are called "serious errors" only if the calibre of the erring player is high enough to regard it as "serious." Here we have another case in which identical irregularities may receive differerent score adjustments. Players want simple laws, and this one would be much simpler (and fairer) if the actual play of the cards is not changed in an adjusted score when the play had nothing to do with the irregularity. [Nigel] I agree with most of Marvin's previous post [snipped] but not with this last bit. I think the law should be blind to the director's assessment of the player's *calibre*. And it seems ludicrous that the law denies redress to victims who are deemed guilty of a double-shot or egregious error after their opponents' infraction. Here is a typical case that players will recognise... At match-pointed pairs, a player, acting on misinformation, doubles his non-vulnerable opponents in a part-score, instead of bidding to a vulnerable slam. Then the victims misdefend to take the contract one down instead of several down. They claim damage but the director and committee deny them redress because of their subsequent "egregious error". BLML commentators agree with the ruling. As a player, I disagree. This law is subjective and unnecessary: - Only legal-experts could concentrate on defending a non-vulnerable part-score -- when they realise that the penalty will be be derisory, compared with a vulnerable (grand) slam. - The normal action of one player may be regarded by others as a wild gamble. (eg Helgemo's "weak jump overcall" of 6D). From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Feb 24 23:28:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:28:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > > [Adam} > > "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood > for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This > clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been > discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's > meaningless without a modifying clause. > +=+ Adam, with the most respect I can gather, that is utter rubbish. The whole of the Drafting Subcommittee could understand it, and Directors have understood it since 1987. Edgar propounded it in just the way we describe, and the English language requires no addition to the words for its understanding. .We are not dealing with an 'interpretation'; but with a substantive change of law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 25 00:22:22 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:22:22 +0000 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A4812E.2080709@talktalk.net> [richard.hills] Barry Cohen, The Life of the Party, pages 106-107: Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Israel's second President after Chaim Weizmann, was in office from 1952 to 1963. An old left-wing kibbutznik himself, he eschewed the trappings of office and remained in his small second- floor flat in Jerusalem. This created certain problems because few countries have more need for security than Israel. Without a Presidential residence, with appropriate security built into it, the security forces had to settle for a small sentry box at floor level out on the street. At all hours of the day or night a lone sergeant sat or stood in the sentry box guarding Israel's President. Amos Oz, one of the nation's leading writers and an old family friend of the Ben Zvi's, then only a teenager, was returning home one evening from a youth meeting and had to pass the President's flat. He glanced into the sentry box out of curiosity and did a complete double-take. There sitting in the sentry box with a sergeant's cap on was the President himself. "Mr President?" Amos enquired, too surprised to understand what was going on. "Shoosh Amos, don't make a fuss. The sergeant's wife is having a baby. He's gone to the hospital to see her. Where else should he be at a time like this?" "But why are you here?" asked Amos still bemused. "I'm looking after me until he gets back. He's absent without leave, silly boy. Now go home and give my love to your mother and father." * * Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs Dealer: North, Vul: None You, West, hold: KT87 A86 K975 K9 The bidding has gone WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass(1) 1S Pass Pass 2C Pass ? (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp.* What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? [Nige1] IMO _P = 10, 2N = 7, 3N = 3. From jeff.ford at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 00:43:20 2009 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:43:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <9dcd40e70902241543x4717647eya3e267a1ecb00ecb@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > > [Marvin] > > Both vulnerable and the bidding goes 1S-P-2S-P (after a long > hesitation); P-3H on very doubtful values. Responder takes the push > and bids 3S for -100. A 3H contract by the offending side would > quite possibly have failed by two tricks, -200. The score is > adjusted to 2S making for the non-offenders, but the offenders > get -200, the most unfavorable result at all probable. > > > [Robert] - snip of language I don't understand - Marv > > [Grattan] > > +=+ I do not know what that all means. We are going to take away the > table score illegally obtained and substitute adjusted scores of 2S > +110 > for the non-offending side and 3H-200 for the offending side. This > is in > accordance with the law. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Declaring a lack of understanding of an argument does not invalidate it. It is especially unhelpful when you make no attempt to state where you (plural) lost the thread. > > [Jerry] > > Everyone agrees that had there been no irregularity, the auction > would > have been ?1S-P-2S-P; P-P. > > With the irregularity, 3H was not a possible contract, because the > NOS bid 3S. > > [Marv] > Baloney. It was a possible contract when it was bid. If one defines "possible contract" to mean "the contract that would occur if the next three people passed", then yes, it is a possible contract. However I suggest this is not a particularly useful definition. If one defines "possible contract" to mean "possible final result of the auction at this table with these players", then it seems obvious that it is not a possible contract, as we were able to observe the actions of these players, and they did not pass out 3H. Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Feb 25 01:50:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:50:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <9dcd40e70902241543x4717647eya3e267a1ecb00ecb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:43 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) If one defines "possible contract" to mean "the contract that would occur if the next three people passed", then yes, it is a possible contract. However I suggest this is not a particularly useful definition. If one defines "possible contract" to mean "possible final result of the auction at this table with these players", then it seems obvious that it is not a possible contract, as we were able to observe the actions of these players, and they did not pass out 3H. Jeff +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- seven would bid 3S. The probability that offender will be left in 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 25 02:19:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:19:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 69B, Law 70A, and Ton [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick: [discussion of other issues snipped] >I also disagree with Ton's claim that L70A applies to the application >of L69B. Is he saying that doubtful points are resolved in favor of >the players rescinding their acquiescence? Richard Hills: Firstly, the esoteric word "acquiescence" was a Lawful term only in the previous Lawbook; it has been deleted from the current 2007 Lawbook. Secondly, Ton correctly notes in his not-yet-official Commentary that agreement to a claim does not take effect until the non-claiming side makes a call on the next board (or the round ends, which Ton forgot to mention). See Law 69A. If agreement to a claim has not yet taken effect, then second thoughts about disputing the claim are determined under Law 70 (Contested Claim or Concession). If agreement to a claim has taken effect, due to the non-claiming side making a call on the next board, or the round ending (see Law 8), whichever comes first, then withdrawal of agreement in the claim is decided by the different Law 69B (Agreed Claim or Concession - Director's Decision). Under Law 70A, a "doubtful point" is resolved against the claimer if there is a timely objection to the claim; Ton's Case 1 on page 17 of his not-yet-official Commentary. Under Law 69B2 it is a "likely" trick* for the non-claiming side that is subtracted from the claimer if there is an untimely objection to the claim; Ton's Case 2 on page 17 of his not-yet-official Commentary. Melborp eht s'tahw? * Law 69B1 belt-and-braces emphasises that a "likely" trick includes a trick that the non-claiming side had actually already won. :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jeff.ford at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 02:27:22 2009 From: jeff.ford at gmail.com (Jeff Ford) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:27:22 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <9dcd40e70902241543x4717647eya3e267a1ecb00ecb@mail.gmail.com> <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <9dcd40e70902241727t45cc12d0hf86e3c2e8b75ac9d@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Grattan wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Ford" > If one defines "possible contract" to mean "the contract that would > occur if the next three people passed", then yes, it is a possible > contract. ?However I suggest this is not a particularly useful > definition. ?If one defines "possible contract" to mean "possible > final result of the auction at this table with these players", then it > seems obvious that it is not a possible contract, as we were able to > observe the actions of these players, and they did not pass out 3H. > > +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred > players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- > seven would bid 3S. ? The probability that offender will be left in > 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not > alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ Thank you for the explanation. I confess that it would not have occurred to me to interpret "at all probable" to mean "at all probable if the non-offenders were replaced with players of like standard". This seems a very strange law to me in this form. An adjusted score depends on the standard of the player it is commited against, but not on the actual player? If you do not wish to use the actual table action to determine the adjustment (and I don't see why you would not), why choose this standard instead of, say, the standard of the average player in the event? Or, since the purpose of the law seems to be to penalize offenders, why not the standard of an expert opponent, or even Deep Finesse? Jeff -- Jeff Ford Redmond, WA From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 25 02:55:33 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:55:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 69B, Law 70A, and Ton [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:19:28 -0500, wrote: > > Robert Frick: > > [discussion of other issues snipped] > >> I also disagree with Ton's claim that L70A applies to the application >> of L69B. Is he saying that doubtful points are resolved in favor of >> the players rescinding their acquiescence? > > Richard Hills: > > Firstly, the esoteric word "acquiescence" was a Lawful term only in > the previous Lawbook; it has been deleted from the current 2007 > Lawbook. > > Secondly, Ton correctly notes in his not-yet-official Commentary that > agreement to a claim does not take effect until the non-claiming side > makes a call on the next board (or the round ends, which Ton forgot to > mention). See Law 69A. > > If agreement to a claim has not yet taken effect, then second thoughts > about disputing the claim are determined under Law 70 (Contested Claim > or Concession). > > If agreement to a claim has taken effect, due to the non-claiming side > making a call on the next board, or the round ending (see Law 8), > whichever comes first, then withdrawal of agreement in the claim is > decided by the different Law 69B (Agreed Claim or Concession - > Director's Decision). > > Under Law 70A, a "doubtful point" is resolved against the claimer if > there is a timely objection to the claim; Ton's Case 1 on page 17 of > his not-yet-official Commentary. > > Under Law 69B2 it is a "likely" trick* for the non-claiming side that > is subtracted from the claimer if there is an untimely objection to > the claim; Ton's Case 2 on page 17 of his not-yet-official Commentary. > > Melborp eht s'tahw? > > * Law 69B1 belt-and-braces emphasises that a "likely" trick includes > a trick that the non-claiming side had actually already won. :-) Got it! Thanks. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 25 03:08:06 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:08:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <9dcd40e70902241543x4717647eya3e267a1ecb00ecb@mail.gmail.com> <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:50:36 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Ford" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:43 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > > If one defines "possible contract" to mean "the contract that would > occur if the next three people passed", then yes, it is a possible > contract. However I suggest this is not a particularly useful > definition. If one defines "possible contract" to mean "possible > final result of the auction at this table with these players", then it > seems obvious that it is not a possible contract, as we were able to > observe the actions of these players, and they did not pass out 3H. > > Jeff > > +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred > players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- > seven would bid 3S. The probability that offender will be left in > 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not > alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree with Jeff -- this establishes a basis for a positive probability in this situation. We just needed the "conditional" (random player of like standard.) Can I assume, since there was such good agreement, that this is the conditional everyone uses? Just to cross the t..... W N E S 1H 1S 2H 2S 3H P(1) P 3S(2) P P P (1) Hesitation (2) Hesitation suggested bidding, passing was an LA If 23% of like players, in either the E position or W position, would bid 4H on this auction, then the director has to determine if making 4 is at all probable. And NS might end up with -420 or -620. This is how the law should be interpreted? And this is standard practice in the compliant areas that use this law? Bob From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Feb 25 03:37:58 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:37:58 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <200902232326.n1NNQ22I011624@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200902232326.n1NNQ22I011624@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49A4AF06.30107@nhcc.net> [from Adam Wildavsky] > If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, > then what is? I'd suggest "had the deal been played against typical opponents instead of the specific ones at the table." In that approach, Marv's example is a bit oversimplified. To recap, NS bid 2S, EW bid an illegal 3H, NS bid 3S. 3H might well have been -200. We all agree NS get the "likely" result in 2S. EW get the worst "at all probable" result considering possibilities both before and after the 3H bid. Often this will be -200 (or -500 in 3Hx or -800 in 4Hx), as Marv suggested, but if 3S by NS is nearly inevitable (say one of them is void in hearts and will "always" bid 3S), then 3H wouldn't be considered. This doesn't go so far as "given perfect choices by NS," but it's much further than "given the actual NS choices." Perhaps the language could be clearer, but I don't think there is much doubt about the intended interpretation. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Feb 25 04:33:03 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:33:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <49A4AF06.30107@nhcc.net> References: <200902232326.n1NNQ22I011624@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A4AF06.30107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <75DD1397417E46DDBE451A41B65DC34A@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > [from Adam Wildavsky] >> If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, >> then what is? > > I'd suggest "had the deal been played against typical opponents instead > of the specific ones at the table." > > In that approach, Marv's example is a bit oversimplified. To recap, NS > bid 2S, EW bid an illegal 3H, NS bid 3S. 3H might well have been -200. > We all agree NS get the "likely" result in 2S. EW get the worst "at all > probable" result considering possibilities both before and after the 3H > bid. Often this will be -200 (or -500 in 3Hx or -800 in 4Hx), as Marv > suggested, but if 3S by NS is nearly inevitable (say one of them is void > in hearts and will "always" bid 3S), then 3H wouldn't be considered. > This doesn't go so far as "given perfect choices by NS," but it's much > further than "given the actual NS choices." Here is an example I posted two years ago, which I think shows the problem with the "against typical opponents" interpretation. Both vulnerable W N E S 2H ..P P 3D AP 3D is ruled to be an infraction. West leads a spade and 3D goes down one; on a club lead, also normal from the West hand, 3D would have gone down two. What score should N-S get if 2H could make? What about if 2H was going down? If 2H was making, E-W get +110; should N-S get -200 because other Wests could have made the winning lead, or -110? If 2H was going down and E-W see that it had no play, they probably won't call the TD, and if they don't, then N-S have to get -100 because that was the table result. But if the TD is called (because E-W aren't sure that 2H is down), and determines that 2H making was not at all probable, should he still give -200 to N-S? I don't think E-W should have to call the TD to restore equity when they are not damaged by an infraction. (And in a KO, E-W must call the TD to preserve their own score.) From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Feb 25 05:43:01 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:43:01 +1100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A4812E.2080709@talktalk.net> References: <49A4812E.2080709@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <200902250443.n1P4h6Zg019936@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 10:22 AM 25/02/2009, you wrote: >[richard.hills] > >Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs Dealer: North, Vul: None >You, West, hold: KT87 A86 K975 K9 >The bidding has gone >WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >--- Pass Pass(1) 1S >Pass Pass 2C Pass >? >(1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint >pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp.* >What call do you make? >What other calls do you consider making? I have already shown my values by my 20 second pause after their 1S. Partner has a ragged 6 count. Who is that peripatetic TD approaching with the loaded shot gun? (I am getting too good at these bidding questions) Cheers Tony (Sydney) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 25 06:38:38 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:38:38 +1100 Subject: [blml] What trick do you question? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A3AC79.6010108@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i.e., e.g., and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language." Richard Hills: [big snip] >>The Director also ruled that if this board had occurred towards >>the end of the match (when South then should have been fully >>aware that his opponents played unusual methods), then he would >>not have adjusted the score. Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : provided there had been some deal where this opening >happened, and even so, it's hard to find a law that the >overcaller did infringe (74 ?). Richard Hills: Alain is entering a cul de sac by searching for a relevant but non- existent deus ex machina. The board occurred half-a-dozen years ago, under the ancien regime of the 1997 Lawbook. The new status quo of the 2007 Lawbook would mean that the Director's hypothetical foreshadowed weltanshauung changes, mutatis mutandis, to a split score ruling. 2007 Law 12B1, second sentence: "Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred - but see C1(b)." 2007 Law 12C1(b): "If, subsequent to the irregularity, the non-offending side has contributed to its own damage by a serious error (unrelated to the infraction) or by wild or gambling action it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self- inflicted. The offending side should be awarded the score that it would have been allotted as the consequence of its infraction only." Richard Hills: So nowadays the Director would irritate both sides, forcing gleichschaltung on the offending side for East's non-alert of West's 1C (an OS score of 3NT +660), and also forcing gleichschaltung on the non-offending side for South's self-inflicted wild or gambling short-term memory loss (an NOS score of 4Hx -1100). Quel est le probl?me ? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Feb 25 07:17:28 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:17:28 +1100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200902250443.n1P4h6Zg019936@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Bobby Wolff, The Lone Wolff, page 221: [snip] "2) In similar situations, when a player's hand does not justify his bidding, that is almost always considered by the committee to be prima facie evidence that improper information has been conveyed. This committee apparently ignored the evidence of the hands." [snip] Tony Musgrove, 2009 winner of the Tricky Ricky Trophy: >I have already shown my values by my 20 second pause after their >1S. Partner has a ragged 6 count. Who is that peripatetic TD >approaching with the loaded shot gun? > >(I am getting too good at these bidding questions) > >Cheers >Tony (Sydney) Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs Dealer: North, Vul: None The bidding has gone WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- Pass Pass(1) 1S Pass(2) Pass 2C (3) Pass Pass Pass (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp. (2) Disputed break in tempo. (3) Agreed break in tempo. Jane Segal 96 Q753 Q82 J754 KT87 Q4 A86 JT4 K975 J43 K9 QT632 Judy Kay-Wolff AJ532 K92 AT6 A8 North-South -110 Not only did both East and West deny that West broke tempo, but also North (who was preparing the pick-up slips) did not notice whether or not West broke tempo. In an earlier thread, Edgar Kaplan advised that 3 versus 1 did not necessarily mean that the Director and/or Appeals Committee should rule disputed facts in accordance with the majority, since the TD and/or AC may find the testimony of the Lone Kay-Wolff more credible. As TD, how do you balance the probabilities? As AC, which side gets the Appeal Without Merit Warning? Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 25 11:15:16 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:15:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A51A34.9070906@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass(1) 1S > Pass Pass 2C Pass > ? > > (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint > pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp.* > > You, West, hold: > > KT87 > A86 > K975 > K9 > > What call do you make? > What other calls do you consider making? > AG : I don't expect 'a bad 12 HCP' facing me, because that would most probably be a balanced hand, whence no 2C reopening. Even with something like J - Kxx - QJxx - AJxxx he should double rather than bid 2C. But surely some move is needed. I'm in favor of 2NT, but could bid 2S in my style, where it is affirmative. 3C is also a possibility, but doesn't accomplish anything that 2NT wouldn't. East's first-round pass is immaterial, as the lower bound for his reopening doesn't change, and I don't need a full opening to make 3NT. I'm rather cuirious about the link between this problem and Ben Zvi's antics ?? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 25 11:16:41 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:16:41 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A51A89.1010602@ulb.ac.be> Marvin L French a ?crit : > Richard Hills wrote: > >> Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs >> Dealer: North, Vul: None >> >> The bidding has gone >> >> WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >> --- Pass Pass(1) 1S >> Pass Pass 2C Pass >> ? >> >> (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat >> matchpoint >> pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 >> hcp.* >> >> You, West, hold: >> >> KT87 >> A86 >> K975 >> K9 >> >> What call do you make? >> > > 2NT > > >> What other calls do you consider making? >> > > 3NT, trapping partner. The only excuse is that these points are > worth more than 13 under the circumstances. > > At my club no one leads partner's suit in this situation, so I would > expect a heart lead and would not consider 3NT. > AG : so, surely you should bid 3NT if the opening had been 1H. That'll teach them the first lesson of partnership bridge : do what partner suggested. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 25 11:29:10 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:29:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49A51D76.3010602@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > The bidding has gone > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- Pass Pass(1) 1S > Pass(2) Pass 2C (3) Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint > pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp. > > (2) Disputed break in tempo. > > (3) Agreed break in tempo. > > Jane Segal > 96 > Q753 > Q82 > J754 > KT87 Q4 > A86 JT4 > K975 J43 > K9 QT632 > Judy Kay-Wolff > AJ532 > K92 > AT6 > A8 > > North-South -110 > > Not only did both East and West deny that West broke tempo, but also > North (who was preparing the pick-up slips) did not notice whether > or not West broke tempo. > > In an earlier thread, Edgar Kaplan advised that 3 versus 1 did not > necessarily mean that the Director and/or Appeals Committee should > rule disputed facts in accordance with the majority, since the TD > and/or AC may find the testimony of the Lone Kay-Wolff more credible. > > As TD, how do you balance the probabilities? > As TD, I'd need to consult several people. I guess nobody would reopen this hand, and that could (but only could) be strong enough evidence. I could also check whether ' systematic lightish reopening' is on their card. Rather than the evidence of the hands, it's West's final pass that strikes me, but criticizing this this would mean that EW's actions were voluntary, rather than the classical 'semi-conscious use of UI'. Perhaps there should exist 'amber warnings' on such situations too. > As AC, which side gets the Appeal Without Merit Warning? > AG : whoever questioned the TD's decision about facts. NB : passing with North's hand looks strange in American style, where South could easily hold AKxxx - AKJxx - Ax - x. Surely North relied on East to repoen, so NS can hardly blame her ;-) NB : if Wolff's point 2) had to be taken into account in a systematic way, then I know some pairs who would be deemed to be using UI every other deal. Best regards Alain From adam at tameware.com Wed Feb 25 15:46:22 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:46:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] Request for record keeping help [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902192205n7ec852b7i48a0fbcec9571ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40902250646g6d5ea166w585834906d00e2c5@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 11:12 PM, wrote: > Adam Wildavsky tracked: > >>As chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee I've started a >>project to compile a database of our decisions over the past decade >>or so. Several NAC members have volunteered to help. We're tracking >>things like who served, who appeared, whether the AC's ruling was >>different than the TD's, and the category of the case. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > As a programmer, Adam will be well aware of the GIGO principle, > Garbage In, Garbage Out. ?The tracking project will be of limited > use unless the correct metrics are measured, for example: > > (a) Was the TD decision consistent with the 1997 Lawbook? > (b) Was the AC decision consistent with the 1997 Lawbook? > (c) Was the TD decision changed by the screener? > (d) If the TD decision and the AC decision were both identical, > were they both wrong or both right? > (e) On how many occasions did the National Authority incorrectly > refuse to overturn a ridiculous or unLawful AC decision? > (f) On how many occasions did the Chair of the National Authority > incorrectly refuse to convene a meeting of the National Authority? We have a saying where I work, "Thank you for volunteering." My initial goal is to generate a baseline set of data quickly. We can then add attributes that seem likely to prove useful. I'll be happy to insert the columns you mention if you'll fill them in. I would suggest that instead of grouping decisions into "correct" and "incorrect" we categorize them as "clearly correct", "clearly incorrect", or "too close to call." I've done something like that on my web site, but only for cases where the TD and AC rulings differed. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Feb 25 15:56:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:56:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <9dcd40e70902241543x4717647eya3e267a1ecb00ecb@mail.gmail.com> <001201c996e3$1479a9b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 19:50:36 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jeff Ford" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:43 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > > If one defines "possible contract" to mean "the contract that would > occur if the next three people passed", then yes, it is a possible > contract. However I suggest this is not a particularly useful > definition. If one defines "possible contract" to mean "possible > final result of the auction at this table with these players", then it > seems obvious that it is not a possible contract, as we were able to > observe the actions of these players, and they did not pass out 3H. > > Jeff > > +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred > players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- > seven would bid 3S. The probability that offender will be left in > 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not > alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > You are saying that we should use probabilities based on players of like standard instead of what actually happened at the table. Imagining this.... partner me 1S P 2S P(1) P 3H(2) 3S(3) P P P (1) hesitation (2) passing was an LA (3) 50% of players of like standard would have doubled 3H and set it one for +200. Suppose the normal result in spades is making two or three or four. If the opps make 3, they weren't damaged by the hesitation and we get -140. If they go set, then we get the least favorable result that was at all probable for players of like standard, which is -200. So IT IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO LET THE CONTRACT MAKE. Now consider our opponents. If they make 3, there was no damage and they keep their score. If they go set, they get the most favorable result that was likely for players of like standard had the irregularity not occurred. That's +170. So THEY GET A HIGHER SCORE WHEN THEY GO SET (assuming no serious error) than when they make 3. Bob, who is thinking that actual table actions should not be replaced with probabilities From john at asimere.com Wed Feb 25 19:20:17 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 18:20:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49A4812E.2080709@talktalk.net> <200902250443.n1P4h6Zg019936@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <1F4AC3E4590949A58DC717D3F37ED0DC@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Musgrove" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 4:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > At 10:22 AM 25/02/2009, you wrote: >>[richard.hills] >> >>Pittsburgh 2005 NABC, Silodor Pairs Dealer: North, Vul: None >>You, West, hold: KT87 A86 K975 K9 >>The bidding has gone >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- Pass Pass(1) 1S >>Pass Pass 2C Pass >>? >>(1) In accordance with ACBL tradition, East's second seat matchpoint >>pairs Pass might be as much as a good 11 hcp or even a bad 12 hcp.* >>What call do you make? >>What other calls do you consider making? > > I have already shown my values by my 20 second pause after > their 1S. Partner has a ragged 6 count. Who is that peripatetic > TD approaching with the loaded shot gun? Given I'm known as one of the most insane protectionists this side of the pond and even I would probably pass 1S (It's the S Qx which kills it, move the Q elsewhere and it's routine) I think we would rule "cheat" if there was UI. ... but was there? In these positions I'd be passing like a shot after a hesitation from pard as it's no-win no-win to take action, so I must have been unaware of the hesitation or I am actually a cheat. I'd have to be there. john > > (I am getting too good at these bidding questions) > > Cheers > Tony (Sydney) > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Feb 25 20:28:58 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:28:58 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> >> [Adam} >> >> "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood >> for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This >> clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been >> discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's >> meaningless without a modifying clause. >> > +=+ ?Adam, with the most respect I can gather, that is utter > rubbish. The whole of the Drafting Subcommittee could > understand it, and Directors have understood it since 1987. > Edgar propounded it in just the way we describe, and the > English language requires no addition to the words for its > understanding. .We are not dealing with an 'interpretation'; > but with a substantive change of law. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > Grattan has made several assertions here. I think I understand them, but I have a few comments and questions. 1. "The whole of the Drafting Subcommittee could understand it [,...] and the English language requires no addition to the words for its understanding." Ordinarily, the authors are not the ones who determine whether or not the text is clear. Years ago, Patrick Billingsley gave me a great lesson on writing. He showed me a comment a professor had mailed in suggesting a clarifying change that he felt should be made to one of Billingsley's examples in Probability and Measure. Billingsley asked me if I agreed with the professor that the original wording was unclear. I said that I thought the original was quite clear. Billingsley said that he thought so too, but nevertheless, he planned to change it. I was surprised. He explained that he was confident that he could keep it just as clear for us while improving it for that professor. He would have laughed at the notion that the author is the final authority on whether the writing is clear or not. 2. "Directors have understood it since 1987." Have they really? I wonder if anyone can find a case in the ACBL casebooks where: A. a director assigned a score to the OS anything like 3H in our example when 3S by the NOS came next at the table; B. the committee or panel affirmed the ruling. To clarify, the case I want to see in A has a single irregularity, a bid, and the auction continued to a different contract, and yet the director removed the actual bids that followed to assign a score based on the irregular bid being the final contract. I almost seem to recall that there are a few cases where A did indeed happen in the casebooks, but the committee or panel laughed at that kind of ruling. 3. "Edgar propounded it in just the way we describe." This is an interesting assertion, because on 5/27/05, Adam wrote "The meaning can only be 'or, for an offending side, the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the irregularity not occurred.' This is consonant with all of Edgar's examples." Can anyone resolve this perfect discrepancy? Which side is Edgar really on? Can Adam list all of Edgar's examples and show that in none of them did he stick the NOS with a result after the irregularity that had 0% probability of occurring at the table because the OS did bid over it? Or can Grattan list just one of Edgar's examples of this type? I wonder who should have the burden of proof. 4. "We are not dealing with an 'interpretation'; but with a substantive change of law." The text in question, as quoted from Marvin, is this: "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable. [PERIOD!]" At first, Marvin and Grattan and others were arguing that the word "probable" in this clause should stay completely unqualified. Later, Grattan gives this example: +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- seven would bid 3S. The probability that offender will be left in 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ This suggests a qualification to clause (ii) that would read something like this: "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the irregularity." Did I understand Grattan correctly? Would Marvin agree? This clause (ii) has meaning, but it seems to me as much of a "substantive change of law" (quoting Grattan) as what Adam suggests. Anyone interpreting clause (ii) in any reasonable way has to choose conditionals to fill the huge void at the end of the clause. Jerry Fusselman From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Feb 25 23:00:08 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:00:08 +0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49A5BF68.4040005@talktalk.net> The ACBL adoptied a version of 12C1e - that deters law-breakers and - compensates victims. Most of the rest of the world adopted 12c1c - which is kinder to law-breakers and - provides less redress for victims. If law-makers complain that the ACBL have *slightly* weakened 12C1e; why do law-makers advocate the *much* weaker 12c1c :) From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Feb 25 23:28:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:28:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Who shall watch the Watchmen? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A51A34.9070906@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] >I'm rather curious about the link between this problem and Ben >Zvi's antics ?? Richard Hills: President Ben Zvi was his own watchman, but nobody watches an ACBL Appeals Committee if it gives an Appeal Without Merit Warning which is without merit. The EBU Laws and Ethics Committee has a more sensible approach, choosing to review a sample of Appeals Committee rulings (which sample is selected by an expert sub-committee), including reviewing _every_ Appeals Committee ruling in which the deposit was retained for a meritless appeal. As related in Bobby Wolff's book, the AWMW awarded against his wife Judy Kay-Wolff (and her partner Jane Segal) was the first and last AWMW to be "vacated" by the ACBL National Authority. Curiously at the time the ACBL National Authority was not the ACBL Laws Commission, but rather the ACBL Board of Directors. Since justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, having BoD administrators who did not necessarily have directing nor appeals nor Laws expertise sit in judgement may have caused the paranoid (e.g. Bobby Wolff) to detect a whiff of King Charles the First's Star Chamber. This "Star Chamber" jurisdictional issue has now been fixed via new ACBL elections: 8. Law 93C1: A further appeal to the Regulating Authority (ACBL) may be allowed only as follows: a. On a point of law to and at the discretion of the ACBL Laws Commission. b. On an allegation of bias of a committee member or members to and at the discretion of the ACBL Appeals and Charges Committee. The appellant is required to present evidence that the bias was not known at the time of the hearing. c. The appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of the decision of the Bridge Appeals Committee that heard the issue. 9. Law 93C3(a): Except as noted in 8 above, the responsibility of dealing finally with any appeal of a Director's decision is that of the tournament's bridge appeals committee. Richard Hills: The issue of vexatious litigants is a problem in any legal system. But the solution imposed by these new ACBL elections -- abolishing almost all appeals against Appeals Committee decisions (including abolishing future appeals against decisions to award an AWMW) -- is a cure worse than the disease. Plus it is no longer even a cure. Under the new 2007 Lawbook these ACBL Elections have become unLawful: The ultimate footnote in the 2007 Lawbook makes it clear that rules for ACBL appeals must be consistent with the real-life laws of the United States. As the American legal system is derived from the English legal system, it shares the English common law commitment to natural justice. A general legal principle of natural justice was enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in his ruling abolishing slavery in England: "...it's so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it but positive law..." Ergo, American common law requires the ACBL to create a mechanism whereby odiously inequitable decisions of Appeals Committee watchmen may be overturned by watchmen watching the watchmen. 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 Feb 25 23:44:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:44:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 42A2 2B or not 2B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a private email, a blmler renowned for his proof-reading skills (he provided me with immense help in my revisions to the Index of the 2007 Lawbook) noted yet another ACBL translation "error". Official 2007 Law 42A2 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: "He may keep count of tricks won and lost." ACBL 2007 Law 42A2 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: "Dummy may keep count of tricks won and lost in accordance with Law 65B." 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 Thu Feb 26 00:11:12 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:11:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <200902232326.n1NNQ22I011624@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A4AF06.30107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: I thought I had replied to this, but apparently not. I'll just respond to you, as I am through with this discussion. I continue discussions mainly to educate myself, not others. Sometimes I violate that rule, but not usually. Once my opinion is solidified, I'm out of it. > [from Adam Wildavsky] >> If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to >> the OS, >> then what is? > > I'd suggest "had the deal been played against typical opponents > instead > of the specific ones at the table." > > In that approach, Marv's example is a bit oversimplified. To > recap, NS > bid 2S, EW bid an illegal 3H, NS bid 3S. 3H might well have > been -200. > We all agree NS get the "likely" result in 2S. EW get the worst > "at all > probable" result considering possibilities both before and after > the 3H > bid. Often this will be -200 (or -500 in 3Hx or -800 in 4Hx), No. These are impossible results. I am a little tired right now, so the words to cover this idea won't come easily. 3H wasn't doubled, so 3Hx is impossible. 3S was passed, so 4H is impossible. I don't know how to state the principle involved right now. These things could have happened, but the actual auction makes them not pertinent . In this case speculation can only be applied to a contract of 3H, regarding how many tricks would have been taken, and 3S, whether declarer committed a serious error that caused it to fail. > suggested, but if 3S by NS is nearly inevitable (say one of them > is void > in hearts and will "always" bid 3S), then 3H wouldn't be > considered. I think this is wrong, but I'm not sure. If 3S goes down it doesn't matter whether it was inevitable, there was damage. The 3H bid was a voluntary risk, indicating a desire to play in 3H, so we give them that result, the dirty rats. Don't mention a PP, please. Now I go for my nap, Marv From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 26 00:30:33 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:30:33 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <200902232326.n1NNQ22I011624@cfa.harvard.edu><49A4AF06.30107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: Whoops, this was supposed to be private - please ignore. - Marv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >I thought I had replied to this, but apparently not. I'll just > respond to you, as I am through with this discussion. I continue > discussions mainly to educate myself, not others. Sometimes I > violate that rule, but not usually. Once my opinion is solidified, > I'm out of it. > >> [from Adam Wildavsky] >>> If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to >>> the OS, >>> then what is? >> >> I'd suggest "had the deal been played against typical opponents >> instead >> of the specific ones at the table." >> >> In that approach, Marv's example is a bit oversimplified. To >> recap, NS >> bid 2S, EW bid an illegal 3H, NS bid 3S. 3H might well have >> been -200. >> We all agree NS get the "likely" result in 2S. EW get the worst >> "at all >> probable" result considering possibilities both before and after >> the 3H >> bid. Often this will be -200 > > (or -500 in 3Hx or -800 in 4Hx), > > No. These are impossible results. I am a little tired right now, > so > the words to cover this idea won't come easily. > > 3H wasn't doubled, so 3Hx is impossible. 3S was passed, so 4H is > impossible. > > I don't know how to state the principle involved right now. These > things could have happened, but the actual auction makes them not > pertinent . In this case speculation can only be applied to a > contract of 3H, regarding how many tricks would have been taken, > and > 3S, whether declarer committed a serious error that caused it to > fail. > >> suggested, but if 3S by NS is nearly inevitable (say one of them >> is void >> in hearts and will "always" bid 3S), then 3H wouldn't be >> considered. > > I think this is wrong, but I'm not sure. If 3S goes down it > doesn't > matter whether it was inevitable, there was damage. The 3H bid was > a > voluntary risk, indicating a desire to play in 3H, so we give them > that result, the dirty rats. Don't mention a PP, please. > > Now I go for my nap, > > Marv > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 07:26:09 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:26:09 -0600 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com> Can anyone provide links to Edgar's writing that bears on L12C1(e)? As I mentioned yesterday, Grattan and Adam have perfectly conflicting views on the meaning of Edgar's pronouncements and examples, and I would like to read the primary source to decide for myself. In particular, I want to see one case where Edgar suggests a ruling like Marvin suggests (and Grattan endorses) in his 3H example. Or perhaps none exist. Jerry Fusselman From jfusselman at gmail.com Thu Feb 26 07:31:38 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:31:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] Request for record keeping help In-Reply-To: <694eadd40902192205n7ec852b7i48a0fbcec9571ec7@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902192205n7ec852b7i48a0fbcec9571ec7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902252231s655fa752m1356aa4af3f8e45d@mail.gmail.com> Hi Adam, I want to help with this. Can you assign me a casebook? The google online form appears broken. Regards, Jerry Fusselman On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > As chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee I've started a > project to compile a database of our decisions over the past decade or > so. Several NAC members have volunteered to help. We're tracking > things like who served, who appeared, whether the AC's ruling was > different than the TD's, and the category of the case. We're more than > half way through, but things are proceeding more slowly than I'd like. > I'm hoping some BLML members will chip in. In exchange you'll get my > thanks and an early look at the database. > > Each case takes a few minutes to enter, transcribing the particulars > from a casebook to an online form. You can see a copy of the form > here: > > ?http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cFpKZXNuRHpnVWc2cnhTcTVQWUpZQ3c6MA.. > > If you'd like to help please drop me a line and I'll assign you a casebook. > > Why are we doing this? Metrics. I'm taking to heart Lord Kelvin's > maxim, "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." > > -- > Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 26 11:53:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:53:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:26 AM Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) > Can anyone provide links to Edgar's writing that bears on L12C1(e)? > As I mentioned yesterday, Grattan and Adam have perfectly conflicting > views on the meaning of Edgar's pronouncements and examples, and I > would like to read the primary source to decide for myself. > > In particular, I want to see one case where Edgar suggests a ruling > like Marvin suggests (and Grattan endorses) in his 3H example. Or > perhaps none exist. > +=+ You will recall that for a period I was Edgar's Vice-Chairman in the WBFLC. He did tread a tight rope and I was aware at times that his advice to that body was not always identical to his advice to the ACBLLC. After consulting Edgar the following guidance, agreed with him, was issued in Zone 1: "In the case of an offending side the requirement is to assess the score which is "the most unfavourable result that was at all probable". There are two key changes*::firstly this result may be obtained either through the action in which the irregularity has not occurred, or alternatively through the action in which the irregularity does occur. The offending side's path to its poor score may be by either of these routes. Secondly there is a difference between what is 'likely' and what (as here) is 'at all probable': discard the improbable and consider the scores that remain. Select the one most unfavourable for the offending side." (* 'changes' here referred to comparison with what the law provided for the non-offending side) I May also quote a message received privately from an ACBL TD of many years' experience and some repute: "I believe the inclusion of the phrase in question into the U.S. version of The Laws was accidental. As a TD, I do not want to be limited by that phrase in assigning a poor score to the offenders. Each case stands on its own, and a ruling might be based on the same call(s) occurring without the infraction (at all probable) but might/would be precluded by that phrase. The words 'in any case' would not, in my opinion, make anything more clear. Bottom line: I believe the phrase "had ...... " should NOT be included." ....................................................................................... ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 26 11:56:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:56:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP><001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:56:28 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > (Jerry Fusselman)) > "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable. [PERIOD!]" > > At first, Marvin and Grattan and others were arguing that the word > "probable" in this clause should stay completely unqualified. Later, > Grattan gives this example: > > +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred > players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- > seven would bid 3S. The probability that offender will be left in > 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not > alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > This suggests a qualification to clause (ii) that would read something > like this: "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the > irregularity." > > Did I understand Grattan correctly? Would Marvin agree? > > +=+ 'At all probable' refers to probability. My illustration of > probability does not require any addition to the wording of > the law. We assess probability when adjusting a score largely > by reference to the anticipated actions of players of like ability > playing the same methods. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hi Grattan. We don't do this -- we don't assign probabilities based on players of like ability WHEN MUCH BETTER INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. E.g., in a hesitation auction, the NOS compete to 3S and take only 8 tricks. Because of the hesitation (and because 3H by opps is making), we roll this back to 2S, and the question becomes the probabilities if the NOS was playing 2S. (This applies to any L12 ruling.) It is fairly automatic, I believe, to give them +110. If they can argue that they would have played the hand differently in 2S than 3S, then we might do differently. But we would never sit down and determine the probable number of tricks for players of like ability and use those. For example, suppose the probabilities are 50% chance of making 8 tricks and 50% chance of making just seven. Would any director give them a weighted average of the two, given that they just make 8 tricks? I don't think so. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Feb 26 14:09:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:09:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com> <008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:53:32 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Fusselman" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 6:26 AM > Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) > > >> Can anyone provide links to Edgar's writing that bears on L12C1(e)? >> As I mentioned yesterday, Grattan and Adam have perfectly conflicting >> views on the meaning of Edgar's pronouncements and examples, and I >> would like to read the primary source to decide for myself. >> >> In particular, I want to see one case where Edgar suggests a ruling >> like Marvin suggests (and Grattan endorses) in his 3H example. Or >> perhaps none exist. >> > +=+ You will recall that for a period I was Edgar's Vice-Chairman in > the WBFLC. He did tread a tight rope and I was aware at times > that his advice to that body was not always identical to his advice to > the ACBLLC. After consulting Edgar the following guidance, agreed > with him, was issued in Zone 1: > "In the case of an offending side the requirement is to assess > the score which is "the most unfavourable result that was at all > probable". There are two key changes*::firstly this result may be > obtained either through the action in which the irregularity has not > occurred, or alternatively through the action in which the irregularity > does occur. The offending side's path to its poor score may be by > either of these routes. Secondly there is a difference between what > is 'likely' and what (as here) is 'at all probable': discard the > improbable > and consider the scores that remain. Select the one most unfavourable > for the offending side." > > (* 'changes' here referred to comparison with what the law > provided for the non-offending side) > > I May also quote a message received privately from an > ACBL TD of many years' experience and some repute: > "I believe the inclusion of the phrase in question into the > U.S. version of The Laws was accidental. As a TD, I do > not want to be limited by that phrase in assigning a poor > score to the offenders. Each case stands on its own, > and a ruling might be based on the same call(s) occurring > without the infraction (at all probable) but might/would > be precluded by that phrase. Thanks for providing the Kaplan quote and this. But... I don't understand the last sentence here. It seems to be saying that the director might base his decision on the same calls occurring without the infraction. That isn't ruled out by the ACBL's inclusion of "without the infraction". Should "without" be replaced with "with in the last sentence? Also, if the most unfavorable result possible (for players of like ability) was if the irregularity had occurred, would this director always apply that? Or only like the ability to sometimes use that? The director seems to want power to choose. Let's see.... 1H 1S 2H 2S 3H 3S P(1) P 4H(2) P P P (1) Hestiation (2) Pass was an LA. Does this director always consider the possibility of the NOS bidding and making 4S? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 26 14:56:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:56:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <200902232326.n1NNQ22I011624@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A4AF06.30107@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <00f001c9981a$0e2e3250$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > [from Adam Wildavsky] >> If "Had the irregularity not occurred" is not to be applied to the OS, >> then what is? > > I'd suggest "had the deal been played against typical opponents instead > of the specific ones at the table." > > In that approach, Marv's example is a bit oversimplified. To recap, NS > bid 2S, EW bid an illegal 3H, NS bid 3S. 3H might well have been -200. > We all agree NS get the "likely" result in 2S. EW get the worst "at all > probable" result considering possibilities both before and after the 3H > bid. Often this will be -200 (or -500 in 3Hx or -800 in 4Hx), as Marv > suggested, but if 3S by NS is nearly inevitable (say one of them is void > in hearts and will "always" bid 3S), then 3H wouldn't be considered. > This doesn't go so far as "given perfect choices by NS," but it's much > further than "given the actual NS choices." > > Perhaps the language could be clearer, but I don't think there is much > doubt about the intended interpretation. > +=+ As to SW's remarks, my belief is that there will rarely not be a proportion of players who would apply Law 16B3 in these circumstances. Unrelated to the above I quote a point put to me by a TD and my response:- ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ...................................................................................... (TD's question) "If the objective(?) of the new(revised) law is to further discourage offenders from offending, and if in the example 3H is likely to go down TWO, and if it were the LHO (original opener) who went on bidding 3S over the pretended 3H contract of the offenders, maybe preventing pd of the opener to X for -500?" In other words if after the 3H bid all options of offended were (re)analyzed as "open", the director's decision could turn out even worse. Or would this be one step too far by any means ?" (Grattan - response) You make a fair point. It is for the director to judge, if possible after polling other players, what outcome has a quantifiable probability. If the hand were such that some players could reasonably be expected to double the 3H - either after partner has passed it, or directly rather than call 3S or Pass - then the director may assess a score of -500 for the offending side. The director is saying that such a result is 'at all probable'. The evidence for a double should be sufficiently clear to avoid the ruling being changed on appeal. ..................................................................................... From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 26 15:23:36 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:23:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com> <008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49A6A5E8.1050406@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > > Also, if the most unfavorable result possible (for players of like > ability) was if the irregularity had occurred, would this director always > apply that? Or only like the ability to sometimes use that? The director > seems to want power to choose. Let's see.... > > 1H 1S 2H 2S > 3H 3S P(1) P > 4H(2) P P P > > (1) Hestiation > (2) Pass was an LA. > > AG : seems like it will always be. > Does this director always consider the possibility of the NOS bidding and > making 4S? > AG: I'd like he would. The problem for the NOS is that they could be deemed to have bid 4S as a double shot ; that might deter them from doing so, which is a subtle kind of damage from the infraction and TDing practices. Perhaps the example isn't pefect (advancer having passed), but consider the following : 1H Dbl Pass 1S 3H Dbl(1) Pass(2) 3S 4H (1)T/O (2) BIT Now, overcaller is subject to a dilemma : bidding 4S and be told 'no adjustment because of two-way shot' ; or passing and missing game. If 4H isn't obvious (and it'll seldom be), then one should take into account 4S as a possible final contract to avoid this. Of course, you should also take into acount possible contracts of 4/5 C/D that could have been reached without the 4H bid. Also notice that it's possible for responder to have an obvious 5H bid over 4S (he tried letting sleeping dogs lie), and that could be the best of all plausible results for the NOS (5S not fetching). Best regards Alain From adam at tameware.com Thu Feb 26 20:27:45 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:27:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] Request for record keeping help In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0902252231s655fa752m1356aa4af3f8e45d@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902192205n7ec852b7i48a0fbcec9571ec7@mail.gmail.com> <2b1e598b0902252231s655fa752m1356aa4af3f8e45d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <694eadd40902261127p75aeb64bs9c8fcbeec6b9724d@mail.gmail.com> Thanks Jerry! The form link I posted was a sample. I disabled it a few days ago -- I've turned it back on so people can see what it looks like. I'll send you a link to the real entry form off-list. AW On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > > Hi Adam, > > I want to help with this. ?Can you assign me a casebook? ?The google > online form appears broken. > > Regards, > Jerry Fusselman > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > As chairman of the ACBL National Appeals Committee I've started a > > project to compile a database of our decisions over the past decade or > > so. Several NAC members have volunteered to help. We're tracking > > things like who served, who appeared, whether the AC's ruling was > > different than the TD's, and the category of the case. We're more than > > half way through, but things are proceeding more slowly than I'd like. > > I'm hoping some BLML members will chip in. In exchange you'll get my > > thanks and an early look at the database. > > > > Each case takes a few minutes to enter, transcribing the particulars > > from a casebook to an online form. You can see a copy of the form > > here: > > > > ?http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cFpKZXNuRHpnVWc2cnhTcTVQWUpZQ3c6MA.. > > > > If you'd like to help please drop me a line and I'll assign you a casebook. > > > > Why are we doing this? Metrics. I'm taking to heart Lord Kelvin's > > maxim, "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." > > > > -- > > Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Feb 26 21:04:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:04:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com><008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <003301c9984d$800f2630$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) >> > Thanks for providing the Kaplan quote and this. But... I don't understand > the last sentence here. It seems to be saying that the director might base > his decision on the same calls occurring without the infraction. That > isn't ruled out by the ACBL's inclusion of "without the infraction". > Should "without" be replaced with "with in the last sentence? > +=+ I quoted verbatim, but I read it as intending 'with the infraction'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From adam at tameware.com Thu Feb 26 23:49:29 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:49:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <694eadd40902261449i114b5e24rb95cd9f49a193417@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Grattan wrote: >> [Adam} >> >> "Had the irregularity not occurred" must be understood >> for the second clause -- any other reading is perverse. This >> clause uses the subjunctive mood, one which has been >> discussed here previously in the context of Law 6. It's >> meaningless without a modifying clause. >> > +=+ ?Adam, with the most respect I can gather, that is utter > rubbish. The whole of the Drafting Subcommittee could > understand it, and Directors have understood it since 1987. > Edgar propounded it in just the way we describe, and the > English language requires no addition to the words for its > understanding. .We are not dealing with an 'interpretation'; > but with a substantive change of law. What we got here is failure to communicate." -- Cool Hand Luke I posted the paragraph you cite in 2001. The discussion does not seem to have advanced much since then. Clearly we are talking at cross purposes. It distresses me when I cannot make my meaning clear to three people I know to be intelligent, you, Marvin, and Richard. I hope you will consider Jerry's point that communication involves two parties, and it is not successful unless the message is understood. This is especially important for a code of laws. At the risk of further repetition of points we've covered before I'm going to make the issue as clear as I can. First some context. On BLML there is often an ambiguity as to whether we are discussing how a law should be interpreted now or how a law ought to be written in the future. Here I am concerned only with the current meaning of the WBF's 12c1(e)(ii), which states: "For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable." The problem is that neither I, nor as far as I can tell any member of the ACBL LC, nor several members of the BLML, understand what this means. I for one would like to. The ACBL LC asked the Drafting Committee to explain but we received no reply. I am familiar with concepts of probability and I know what the phrase "at all probable" means in a given situation. What I don't understand is what situation this law contemplates. In 12c1(e)(i) that is straightforward -- it's the hypothetical situation where the irregularity had not occurred. What is the situation in which 12c1(e)(ii) operates? Eight years ago I attempted to induce from Marvin's example a context that would give this phrase a concrete meaning. He has yet to inform me whether my guess was correct, and no one else has chimed in either way. I now suspect that you and he believe the context to be "in the instant after the irregularity." That is just a guess on my part -- I cannot infer it from the text of the law. I hope that, if you realize that your intended meaning is not clear, you will do your best to explain. I know that this would not be an official WBF explanation, but that's fine with me -- I'm just trying to understand this law. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Feb 26 23:56:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:56:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com><008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <003301c9984d$800f2630$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <19415D8021984976AA3EB6B4868E4777@MARVLAPTOP> I am a great believer in historical precedent with regard to the laws of contract bridge. The 1967 and 1975 Laws for duplicate bridge provided that the non-offenders in a matchpoint pair game get a number of matchpoints "not to exceed the number required to offset the irregularity." The offenders were given the effect of that adjustment or possibly a result worse than that, at the Director's discretion. The 1997 Laws revised the language to essentially what is currently in the 2007 Laws. In Edgar's series "Appeals Committee," published in the Bridge World 1981-1983, he gave an example (Volume 1, page 8) in which he would give the non-offenders their likely result had there been no infraction, but would give the offending side zero matchpoints! No, not as a PP, but as a score adjustment. Obviously he did not believe this was illegal. That strikes me as more in accord with the older laws, but it is plain that there is nowhere a hint in what Edgar has said or in historical precedent that the offenders' adjusted score should necessarily be based on what would likely have happened absent the irregularity. Usually, yes; necessarily, no. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 00:30:57 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:30:57 -0600 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <19415D8021984976AA3EB6B4868E4777@MARVLAPTOP> References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com> <008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred> <003301c9984d$800f2630$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19415D8021984976AA3EB6B4868E4777@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902261530u3520a594he5b0b63dae295264@mail.gmail.com> [Marvin] In Edgar's series "Appeals Committee," published in the Bridge World 1981-1983, he gave an example (Volume 1, page 8) in which he would give the non-offenders their likely result had there been no infraction, but would give the offending side zero matchpoints! No, not as a PP, but as a score adjustment. Obviously he did not believe this was illegal. [Jerry] In this example, was there exactly one infraction, and did Edgar hypothesize the NOS taking some action other than what they did at the table? In other words, did Edgar recommend giving positive weight to possible NOS actions that they could have taken at the table, but did not? Also, is this a case where he decided the score adjustment he wanted to make first, and then just did it---trusting his intuition more than the laws? From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 01:02:23 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:02:23 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902261602l2e768470qe8a74fce39b07314@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry] I wish I could read some examples of directors using Marvin and Grattan's suggested reading of L12C1(e) to manufacture alternate post-infraction outcomes solely to give NOS a lower score. Can anyone find one online? [Robert] We don't do this -- we don't assign probabilities based on players of like ability WHEN MUCH BETTER INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE. [Law 85A1] In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of the evidence he is able to collect. [Jerry] Does Law 85A1 supports Robert's view? Consider a director who tries to assess the post-infraction likelihood that players as similar as possible to Fred and Ethyl would bid 3S over 3H. I think he is required by law 85A1 to use the best information he is able to collect. If Fred and Ethyl did bid 3S over 3H, then any assertion that some action other than 3S would happen seems an obvious director violation of 85A1. Similarly, if he asks players as different as possible as Fred and Ethyl, he is violating law 85A1. It seems clearly mandated by law for the director to make the best estimates he is able, and what better estimate is possible than actual the experience that conforms to the required conditions in all possible respects? I would think a director would be happy when the burden of estimating what a pair would do is eased by seeing what the pair actually did. One reason I could see director being unhappy is that he wants to penalize the OS more, so he does something akin to stock churning---he changes what actually happened in several ways knowing that it will almost surely help him award his wished-for penalty. The quote Grattan gave from an ACBL director seems to support this view: [anonymous ACBL director] As a TD, I do not want to be limited by that phrase in assigning a poor score to the offenders. [Jerry] I had thought that the sentence "For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable." was intended to make it highly unlikely the OS would gain from the infraction, but if I understand Marvin, Grattan, and this director correctly, it is also gives a convenient way to pile on extra penalty when that is the director's wish. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 27 02:07:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:07:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 42A2 2B or not 2B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Official 2007 Law 42A2 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: "He may keep count of tricks won and lost." ACBL 2007 Law 42A2 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: "Dummy may keep count of tricks won and lost in accordance with Law 65B." Adam Wildavsky: [snip] >Clearly we are talking at cross purposes. It distresses me >when I cannot make my meaning clear to three people I know to >be intelligent, you [Grattan], Marvin, and Richard. [snip] Richard Hills: Now that the South Pacific Zone has joined the European Zone in adopting Law 12C1(c), the number of non-ACBL TDs still using Law 12C1(e)(ii) is likely to be a small number, with those electing to rule from an ACBL version of the Lawbook even smaller, with the possibility of a ruling differing due to the two versions of Law 12C1(e)(ii) smaller still. So under the "let's be practical" motto, we are debating a storm in a teacup. However..... I do have strong concerns about a matter of principle, the fact that the Drafting Committee spent zillions of hours creating a universal Lawbook (carefully crafted with defaults and options to suit local tastes), and this universal Lawbook is arbitrarily changed. For example, dummy's Law 65B3 option is a Qualified Right, pursuant to the "exercise other rights" phrase in the Law 42B prologue. The ACBL rewrites Law 42A2 to cross-reference Law 65B, thus creating the unintended consequence of changing dummy's Law 65B3 option to an Absolute Right. 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 Feb 27 02:17:31 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:17:31 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 85B (was 25A) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A3A900.4040506@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, Kansas City 2001 Appeals Casebook, page 4: "This is not a liberated Director. To be fair I am uncertain whether (s)he labours under ACBL restraints or whether it is the Director who perceives restraints that do not exist. Judged against European expectations, a rating of 3 on a 10-point scale would be generous." Law 85B - Rulings on Disputed Facts - Facts Not Determined: "If the Director is unable to determine the facts to his satisfaction, he makes a ruling that will permit play to continue." Sven Pran asserted: >If they cannot agree on which contract they have reached then >they have not reached any contract and consequently have no >contract in which to play the board. Richard Hills asks: Perhaps Law 85B was poorly translated into Norwegian, with the Norwegian translators perceiving restraints that do not exist? Does not Law 85B require the Director to make a (perhaps very arbitrary) decision about what contract was reached, so that play can continue in that (perhaps very arbitrary) contract? 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 swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 27 02:37:09 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:37:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <200902262343.n1QNhA3C010787@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200902262343.n1QNhA3C010787@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49A743C5.1080401@nhcc.net> > From: Adam Wildavsky > What is the situation in which 12c1(e)(ii) operates? > ...no one else has chimed in either > way. I now suspect that you and he believe the context to be "in the > instant after the irregularity." Adam has missed some messages, I'm afraid. My suggestion was for the context was "had the deal been played against typical opponents instead of the specific ones at the table." I think that's Grattan's answer too, though as always his messages are hard to interpret. It occurs to me that another possible context could be "had the NOS avoided serious error and wild or gambling action." That gives the same adjustment to both sides more often but doesn't let the OS off the hook if it's only SEoWoGA that saves them. There are probably other possibilities, but I agree with Adam (despite my earlier suggestion that the Laws are clear) that the WBFLC ought to clarify which of these (or something else) is intended. From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 02:41:04 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:41:04 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902261741v35f81273jb875ac543afe4b16@mail.gmail.com> [Jerry] Everyone agrees that had there been no irregularity, the auction would have been ?1S-P-2S-P; P-P. With the irregularity, 3H was not a possible contract, because the NOS bid 3S. [Marv] Baloney. It was a possible contract when it was bid. [Jerry] According to Marv, was 1S a possible contract solely because it was possible when it was bid? If Marvin cannot understand Adam's or Robert's posts on this issue, he might not understand mine either. But I will try again: What I meant was, 3H was not a possible contract with the infraction in exactly the same way that 1S or pass out is not a possible contract without the infraction, because we have the evidence at the table. I thought this was obvious, as far as it goes. I respect Marv's opinion, so I will ask another question about his post. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 27 02:43:49 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:43:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <200902251528.n1PFSXbh010445@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200902251528.n1PFSXbh010445@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49A74555.9080202@nhcc.net> > From: "David Grabiner" > Here is an example I posted two years ago, which I think shows the problem with > the "against typical opponents" interpretation. > > Both vulnerable > W N E S > 2H ..P P 3D > AP > > 3D is ruled to be an infraction. West leads a spade and 3D goes down one; > on a club lead, also normal from the West hand, 3D would have gone down two. > What score should N-S get if 2H could make? What about if 2H was going > down? > > If 2H was making, E-W get +110; should N-S get -200 because other Wests could > have made the winning lead, or -110? If the rule is "against typical opponents," a club lead is surely "at all probable," so NS get -200. Why is that a problem? > If 2H was going down and E-W see that it had no play, they probably won't call > the TD, and if they don't, then N-S have to get -100 because that was the table > result. But if the TD is called (because E-W aren't sure that 2H is down), and > determines that 2H making was not at all probable, should he still give -200 to > N-S? The NOS got +100, but without the infraction, they would have been -100. No damage, no adjustment. Again I don't see a problem. "Against typical opponents" may or may not be the intended interpretation, but I don't see any problem with it. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Feb 27 02:52:33 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:52:33 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <200902251540.n1PFetPU011900@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200902251540.n1PFetPU011900@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49A74761.10500@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > Imagining this.... > > partner me > 1S P 2S P(1) > P 3H(2) 3S(3) P > P P > > (1) hesitation > (2) passing was an LA > (3) 50% of players of like standard would have doubled 3H and set it one > for +200. > > Suppose the normal result in spades is making two or three or four. If the > opps make 3, they weren't damaged by the hesitation You mean, of course "by the illegal 3H bid." > and we get -140. If they > go set, then we get the least favorable result that was at all probable > for players of like standard, which is -200. > > So IT IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO LET THE CONTRACT MAKE. Yes, nothing unusual here. If you know your side has committed an infraction, sometimes you can avoid an adjusted score by giving the points back in subsequent play. The standard example is refusing to win an honor after partner has made a deceptive hesitation. > Now consider our opponents. If they make 3, there was no damage and > they keep their score. If they go set, they get the most favorable result > that was likely for players of like standard had the irregularity not > occurred. That's +170. There's no reason the "typical player" context has to apply to the NOS, though I don't see any dreadful injustice if it is. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 27 03:05:22 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:05:22 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <49A74555.9080202@nhcc.net> References: <200902251528.n1PFSXbh010445@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A74555.9080202@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <0A6A4F7086E54854B269E0F9907BA29F@erdos> "Steve Willner" >> From: "David Grabiner" >> Here is an example I posted two years ago, which I think shows the problem >> with >> the "against typical opponents" interpretation. >> >> Both vulnerable >> W N E S >> 2H ..P P 3D >> AP >> >> 3D is ruled to be an infraction. West leads a spade and 3D goes down one; >> on a club lead, also normal from the West hand, 3D would have gone down two. >> What score should N-S get if 2H could make? What about if 2H was going >> down? >> >> If 2H was making, E-W get +110; should N-S get -200 because other Wests could >> have made the winning lead, or -110? > > If the rule is "against typical opponents," a club lead is surely "at > all probable," so NS get -200. Why is that a problem? This is not necessarily a problem, but... >> If 2H was going down and E-W see that it had no play, they probably won't >> call >> the TD, and if they don't, then N-S have to get -100 because that was the >> table >> result. But if the TD is called (because E-W aren't sure that 2H is down), >> and >> determines that 2H making was not at all probable, should he still give -200 >> to >> N-S? > > The NOS got +100, but without the infraction, they would have been -100. > No damage, no adjustment. Again I don't see a problem. What do you do for the offending side here? If the TD is not called, the offenders get -100. If the TD is called, then -200 is the least favorable score that was at all probable, and there was an infraction; should he give the offenders -200? I don't like a situation in which the NOS must call the TD and request an adjusted score in order to give the opponents a proper score. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 27 03:37:21 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:37:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <49A74761.10500@nhcc.net> References: <200902251540.n1PFetPU011900@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A74761.10500@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5CC50CF5DA5C45FD9F4EC1B198583397@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: >> From: "Robert Frick" >> Imagining this.... >> >> partner me >> 1S P 2S P(1) >> P 3H(2) 3S(3) P >> P P >> >> (1) hesitation >> (2) passing was an LA >> (3) 50% of players of like standard would have doubled 3H and set it one >> for +200. >> >> Suppose the normal result in spades is making two or three or four. If the >> opps make 3, they weren't damaged by the hesitation > > You mean, of course "by the illegal 3H bid." > >> and we get -140. If they >> go set, then we get the least favorable result that was at all probable >> for players of like standard, which is -200. >> >> So IT IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO LET THE CONTRACT MAKE. > > Yes, nothing unusual here. If you know your side has committed an > infraction, sometimes you can avoid an adjusted score by giving the > points back in subsequent play. The standard example is refusing to win > an honor after partner has made a deceptive hesitation. I don't think this is a proper example. By making an inferior play, you can avoid an adjusted score, but unless the superior play is itself an infraction, the adjustment after the superior play should only be to redress the damage. In fact, this creates a sportsmanlike dumping situation. Suppose that there are exactly eight tricks in spades, and you are on lead with four tricks taken on defense. If you cash the setting trick against 3S, the score is adjusted to +110 for your opponents (likely score without the infraction) and -200 for you. If you decline to cash the setting trick, your opponents keep the +140 you got at the table and you get -140 because there was no damage. This doesn't make sense; it shouldn't be in your interest to give the opponents a higher score. The alternative interpretation is to say that you still benefited from your infraction; if you decline to cash the setting trick, you still get the -200 which was probably given your infraction, even though it could not have happened at the table. But that depends on your opponents calling the TD when they have not been damaged. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Fri Feb 27 03:37:21 2009 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:37:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <49A74761.10500@nhcc.net> References: <200902251540.n1PFetPU011900@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A74761.10500@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <5CC50CF5DA5C45FD9F4EC1B198583397@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: >> From: "Robert Frick" >> Imagining this.... >> >> partner me >> 1S P 2S P(1) >> P 3H(2) 3S(3) P >> P P >> >> (1) hesitation >> (2) passing was an LA >> (3) 50% of players of like standard would have doubled 3H and set it one >> for +200. >> >> Suppose the normal result in spades is making two or three or four. If the >> opps make 3, they weren't damaged by the hesitation > > You mean, of course "by the illegal 3H bid." > >> and we get -140. If they >> go set, then we get the least favorable result that was at all probable >> for players of like standard, which is -200. >> >> So IT IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO LET THE CONTRACT MAKE. > > Yes, nothing unusual here. If you know your side has committed an > infraction, sometimes you can avoid an adjusted score by giving the > points back in subsequent play. The standard example is refusing to win > an honor after partner has made a deceptive hesitation. I don't think this is a proper example. By making an inferior play, you can avoid an adjusted score, but unless the superior play is itself an infraction, the adjustment after the superior play should only be to redress the damage. In fact, this creates a sportsmanlike dumping situation. Suppose that there are exactly eight tricks in spades, and you are on lead with four tricks taken on defense. If you cash the setting trick against 3S, the score is adjusted to +110 for your opponents (likely score without the infraction) and -200 for you. If you decline to cash the setting trick, your opponents keep the +140 you got at the table and you get -140 because there was no damage. This doesn't make sense; it shouldn't be in your interest to give the opponents a higher score. The alternative interpretation is to say that you still benefited from your infraction; if you decline to cash the setting trick, you still get the -200 which was probably given your infraction, even though it could not have happened at the table. But that depends on your opponents calling the TD when they have not been damaged. From john at asimere.com Fri Feb 27 03:53:51 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:53:51 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <200902251540.n1PFetPU011900@cfa.harvard.edu><49A74761.10500@nhcc.net> <5CC50CF5DA5C45FD9F4EC1B198583397@erdos> Message-ID: <4F1A5A9D157C422F8F99A4818A3C7D24@JOHN> I think this is whi I dislike non-balancing scores so much. I've always been motivated to find a balancing score and then, if necessary, award a PP for gross infractions. We can do it in the UK and it is the least offensive ruling to the players as well as having some basis in law. I've seen far too many players just quit the game because the lunatic L&E passes down a rule that might be sensible for the world championships but is f*****g ridiculous in a local one day event. People don't come out to be told they're cheating bastards by jumped up, pumped up TDs. They actually came out to "play Bridge like she is spoke" and if occasionally they get a bit pissed off by a TD then that's fine, but if we're keeping deposits and awarding 0% to both sides we (the TDs) have lost the plot. These guys have paid my mortgage for the last 20 years; I'm THEIR servant, not their prosecutor, and I'm not doing what THEY want if they go home swearing never to return. ... and I'm seen to be firm fair and pretty tough on "cheats". John ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Grabiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" ; Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 2:37 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > "Steve Willner" writes: > >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> Imagining this.... >>> >>> partner me >>> 1S P 2S P(1) >>> P 3H(2) 3S(3) P >>> P P >>> >>> (1) hesitation >>> (2) passing was an LA >>> (3) 50% of players of like standard would have doubled 3H and set it one >>> for +200. >>> >>> Suppose the normal result in spades is making two or three or four. If >>> the >>> opps make 3, they weren't damaged by the hesitation >> >> You mean, of course "by the illegal 3H bid." >> >>> and we get -140. If they >>> go set, then we get the least favorable result that was at all probable >>> for players of like standard, which is -200. >>> >>> So IT IS TO OUR ADVANTAGE TO LET THE CONTRACT MAKE. >> >> Yes, nothing unusual here. If you know your side has committed an >> infraction, sometimes you can avoid an adjusted score by giving the >> points back in subsequent play. The standard example is refusing to win >> an honor after partner has made a deceptive hesitation. > > I don't think this is a proper example. By making an inferior play, you > can > avoid an adjusted score, but unless the superior play is itself an > infraction, > the adjustment after the superior play should only be to redress the > damage. > > In fact, this creates a sportsmanlike dumping situation. Suppose that > there are > exactly eight tricks in spades, and you are on lead with four tricks taken > on > defense. If you cash the setting trick against 3S, the score is adjusted > to > +110 for your opponents (likely score without the infraction) and -200 for > you. > If you decline to cash the setting trick, your opponents keep the +140 you > got > at the table and you get -140 because there was no damage. This doesn't > make > sense; it shouldn't be in your interest to give the opponents a higher > score. > > The alternative interpretation is to say that you still benefited from > your > infraction; if you decline to cash the setting trick, you still get > the -200 > which was probably given your infraction, even though it could not have > happened > at the table. But that depends on your opponents calling the TD when they > have > not been damaged. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 04:01:02 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:01:02 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902261901q1d747b0fsceaf255e3a7f33b0@mail.gmail.com> Marv wrote: > [Robert] - snip of language I don't understand - Marv Grattan said he did not understand it either, so let me try to rephrase some of Robert's points in four different ways: The best evidence of what the NOS would have done had X occurred is what they did when X occurred. Directors should use the best evidence they can find. Any estimate of probabilities requires an assumption---some mention of what to assume---some condition of what holds. It is perverse to ask someone what they would do under situation X when they were only a few minutes ago in situation X and took a specific action. Do you, or Grattan, understand any better now? Since neither of you ask any questions about it, it is hard to help you understand it, but I tried. Jerry Fusselman From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 27 04:17:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:17:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49A3FE90.6020700@talktalk.net> Message-ID: H.L. Mencken (1880-1956): "There are two kinds of blml postings; those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read." Unreadably long blml posting attached. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946): "In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called 'pacification'. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called 'transfer of population' or 'rectification of frontiers'. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called 'elimination of unreliable elements'. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them." British High Court, Politics and the English Language, 4 February 2009: [snip] iv) There was a general public interest in the exposure of evidence of any serious criminality by the State. It would therefore be contrary to the public interest to claim public interest immunity to conceal evidence of such criminality, as the rule of law demanded the investigation of such wrongdoing and the open and public adjudication of it. A claim to conceal evidence of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or torture under the guise of public interest immunity could not be countenanced as it was incompatible with international law and values relating to the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the effective enforcement of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the International Criminal Court Act 2001. v) A further consideration was that the abhorrence of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and the vital interest in preventing it entailed that any information showing the State had been engaged in or assisted such practices was of constitutional importance. The provision of information in relation to such matters guaranteed accountability and transparency of the State in relation to a matter of a fundamental human right that had a long and historic protection in our democracy. vi) Article 6 read with Article 10 of the ECHR accorded the very highest protection to this type of information. The Articles not only required the provision of information as to wrongdoing by the State as necessary to the maintenance of the rule of law, but as essential to the facilitation of free speech and democratic accountability. vii) The Foreign Secretary's position was inconsistent with these basic principles: [snip] Nigel Guthrie: >I like Richard's defence of L81C3. I agree that some justice is better >than none. Richard Hills: A little old lady may notice an opponent's revoke, but choose not to summon the Director, since she knows that if she does so her opponent will accuse her of "intolerable lawyering". Then the Director may (later) notice the revoke, but dither on applying Law 81C3, since the Director knows that if she does so she will be accused by the Appeals Committee Chair of being "at best absurd and at worst criminal". While Orwell criticised euphemisms as misleading (e.g. the harsh word "torture" misleadingly replaced by the Latinate phrase "extraordinary rendition"), dysphemisms can be equally misleading. So the rhetorical flourish "at best absurd and at worst criminal" boils down to the Director correctly obeying a current Law in accordance with the intent of the drafters of the Lawbook. Nigel Guthrie: >Why shouldn't the director correct observed infractions, *immediately*? Richard Hills: Both the Appeals Committee Chair and Nigel Guthrie can forward their contrasting views on what the next Lawbook should say when the new Drafting Committee calls for submissions (circa 2013 ??). But until then the 2007 Law 81C3 applies. And the 2007 Law 81C3 does not include the word "immediately". Nigel Guthrie: >What law justifies delay? Richard Hills: The Director's duties to both sides are defined by the key word in Law 81C3, "rectify". A hint as to what outcome the TD should aim for with her rectification is "the expectation had the infraction not occurred" (Law 12B1). Immediately stepping in may be necessary (e.g. players sitting in the wrong seats). But the Law 81C3 "rectify" may required a deferred stepping in. For example, the offending side have given MI, but this MI does not damage the non-offending side, since the OS are also consequently having a bidding misunderstanding and the NOS are about to collect +7600 _if_ the Director does not immediately step in to correct the MI. A man, a plan, a canal, Panama! What's the palindrome? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 04:22:08 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:22:08 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902261922ra534211q4ed6bcf37c279519@mail.gmail.com> > > +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred > players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- > seven would bid 3S. ? The probability that offender will be left in > 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not > alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ? +=+ > > This suggests a qualification to clause (ii) that would read something > like this: ?"(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the > irregularity." > > Did I understand Grattan correctly? ?Would Marvin agree? > > +=+ 'At all probable' refers to probability. My illustration of > probability does not require any addition to the wording of > the law. We assess probability when adjusting a score largely > by reference to the anticipated actions of players of like ability > playing the same methods. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > OK, got it, Grattan feels that this law "does not require any addition to the wording." Grattan has always said so. Some of us wish there was a second, equivalent version with a little more detail. Can Grattan add the words to the law to try it make it perfectly clear and correct to some of the rest of us, even though it may offend a sense of parsimony? Frequently teachers do that to help students---it is no disgrace to either. So, what would be a longer version be that has same meaning that Grattan understands in the current version? Is my suggestion adequate? Does it convey the full meaning that Grattan, or Marv, or Richard, finds in the law? > "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the > irregularity." Jerry Fusselman From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Fri Feb 27 04:59:42 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:59:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0902261922ra534211q4ed6bcf37c279519@mail.gmail.com > References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902261922ra534211q4ed6bcf37c279519@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200902270359.n1R3xmiV006988@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:22 PM 27/02/2009, you wrote: > > > > +=+ Let is say that over 3H twenty-three out of one hundred > > players of like standard in the next seat would pass and seventy- > > seven would bid 3S. The probability that offender will be left in > > 3H is 23%. That is "at all probable". The probability does not > > alter because the actual next player happens to be one of the 77%. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > This suggests a qualification to clause (ii) that would read something > > like this: "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of > > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior > > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the > > irregularity." > > > > Did I understand Grattan correctly? Would Marvin agree? > > > > +=+ 'At all probable' refers to probability. My illustration of > > probability does not require any addition to the wording of > > the law. We assess probability when adjusting a score largely > > by reference to the anticipated actions of players of like ability > > playing the same methods. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >OK, got it, Grattan feels that this law "does not require any addition >to the wording." Grattan has always said so. Some of us wish there >was a second, equivalent version with a little more detail. Can >Grattan add the words to the law to try it make it perfectly clear and >correct to some of the rest of us, even though it may offend a sense >of parsimony? Frequently teachers do that to help students---it is no >disgrace to either. > >So, what would be a longer version be that has same meaning that >Grattan understands in the current version? Is my suggestion >adequate? Does it convey the full meaning that Grattan, or Marv, or >Richard, finds in the law? > > > "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of > > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior > > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the > > irregularity." All that was needed was a simple e.g. or footnote like the classic L75 footnote in 1997, now incorporated into L75. We need it for the current L25, and obviously it could help for L12c, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) >Jerry Fusselman > >_______________________________________________ >blml mailing list >blml at amsterdamned.org >http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 27 07:04:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:04:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 42A2 2B or not 2B [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:07:05 -0500, wrote: > Official 2007 Law 42A2 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: > > "He may keep count of tricks won and lost." > > ACBL 2007 Law 42A2 - Dummy's Rights - Absolute Rights: > > "Dummy may keep count of tricks won and lost in accordance with > Law 65B." > > Adam Wildavsky: > > [snip] > >> Clearly we are talking at cross purposes. It distresses me >> when I cannot make my meaning clear to three people I know to >> be intelligent, you [Grattan], Marvin, and Richard. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills: > > Now that the South Pacific Zone has joined the European Zone > in adopting Law 12C1(c), the number of non-ACBL TDs still > using Law 12C1(e)(ii) is likely to be a small number, with > those electing to rule from an ACBL version of the Lawbook > even smaller, with the possibility of a ruling differing due > to the two versions of Law 12C1(e)(ii) smaller still. > > So under the "let's be practical" motto, we are debating a > storm in a teacup. > > However..... > > I do have strong concerns about a matter of principle, the > fact that the Drafting Committee spent zillions of hours > creating a universal Lawbook (carefully crafted with defaults > and options to suit local tastes), and this universal Lawbook > is arbitrarily changed. > > For example, dummy's Law 65B3 option is a Qualified Right, > pursuant to the "exercise other rights" phrase in the Law 42B > prologue. > > The ACBL rewrites Law 42A2 to cross-reference Law 65B, thus > creating the unintended consequence of changing dummy's Law > 65B3 option to an Absolute Right. I too am not fond of the ACBL changing the laws for its own edition. For example, it might seem harmless to add headings. But I was trying to use those to define "procedures", thinking that the heading I see are actually in the laws. However, I don't see how the unqualified reference to L65B removes the qualification within L65B. Nor do I find this particular addition "arbitrary". The actual L42A2 does not place any restraints on how the dummy keeps track of tricks won and lost. If dummy did that with his fingers, or on a chalkboard, I would tell him to stop because it violated standard practice. (Isn't it standard practice that the only way dummy is allowed to keep track of tricks won and lost is by L65B procedures?) But I would agree that these methods were approved according to the non-ACBL laws. I appreciate Richard finding and reporting these differences. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Feb 27 07:19:04 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:19:04 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: John (MadDog) Probst, 27th April 2005: >>............ >>English premier league, screens, the whole show: TD leaning on >>screen (I usually lean on a wall, but was enjoyably engaged in >>scratching my back on the top corner of the screen). Overheard >>at the table, all players knew I was there. >> >>"Was it down one or two?" >>"No idea, how about -75?" >>"TD won't like it. Toss you for it" >> >>"Down two, ok" >>"Yes" Sven Pran, 28th April 2005: >And the "KNEW" you were there !!!!! Indeed. 8-) > >Regards Sven John (MadDog) Probst, 28th April 2005: ok, we all know each other very well, and the teams are great personal friends anyway. They know that I would have intervened if I had thought it appropriate, but as far as I can see a bridge result was obtained and I was not called to the table. As I recall after the result was written down one of them winked at me, I said "I didn't hear a TD call" and there was a nod from round the table. As Herman says, once they had called on the next hand the matter was over, why should I interfere in their game when I'm not asked to? Richard Hills: Yes and no. Two paragraphs of Yes: "They know that I would have intervened if I had thought it appropriate." Indeed. Dogmatic TDs would draw absolutely no distinction between this collusive arbitrary score and the notorious Double Imps scandal in America (where professional teams colluded to alternately win Swiss Teams events by taking it in turns to arbitrarily score maximum victory points). But in this case the imps at stake were trivial, at most two, and the motive was pure. Not the Double Imps motive of gaining a cash bonus for 1st place from your sponsor, but rather a "let's be practical" decision that the 0-2 imps at stake were not worth the drinking time lost by reconstructing the play on the last board. One paragraph of No: Of course, in the unlikely event that a two-imp change proved to be crucial (e.g. affecting whether or not an uninvolved team qualified for the semi-finals on a tiebreak), then I believe John should have revisited his wink-and-nod non-decision. John (MadDog) Probst, 27th February 2009: [snip] I've seen far too many players just quit the game because the lunatic L&E passes down a rule that might be sensible for the world championships but is f*****g ridiculous in a local one day event. People don't come out to be told they're cheating bastards by jumped up, pumped up TDs. Richard Hills: Yes and no. In my opinion, Law 74A2 infractions are exacerbated by jumped down, pumped down TDs. In my opinion, more players quit the game due to rude partners and opponents than due to TDs. In a private email, an occasional expert partner of mine wrote: "I have become somewhat disenchanted and jaded with bridge over recent years and it is a breath of fresh air to play with someone who enjoys the game so much, is totally ethical, and totally gracious to the opponents." John (MadDog) Probst, 27th February 2009: They actually came out to "play Bridge like she is spoke" and if occasionally they get a bit pissed off by a TD then that's fine, but if we're keeping deposits and awarding 0% to both sides we (the TDs) have lost the plot. [snip] Richard Hills: Yes and No. Monetary deposits are financially inequitable, so are now being progressively abolished by Regulating Authorities (although they linger in EBU and international events). But imp/matchpoint/VP deposits uniformly enforced (as Aussies and Kiwis do) do not cause players to quit the game provided that players are warned in advance by Appeals Advisors, who can informally explain the issues involved. A number of years ago, I was the Chair of the Appeals Committee at the South Canberra Bridge Club's Sunday Swiss Teams. Being a small club, we did not have pre-facto Appeals Advisors, so I took it upon myself to be a post-facto Appeals Advisor to an appellant (a newbie bridge player) who was very much not gruntled. In the first appeal, the appellant's partner (and wife, an equally newbie bridge player) had given an explanation which did not correspond with his cards. The appellant lost the appeal. In the second appeal, the appellant's LHO had given an explanation which did not correspond with the cards of the appellant's RHO. The appellant lost the appeal. The appellant was rather irate at the apparently inconsistent outcomes, and I thought there was a risk that he and his wife might "just quit the game because the lunatic" Appeals Committee was following an arcane "rule that might be sensible for the world championships but is f*****g ridiculous in a local one day event." So I thoroughly explained Law 75, the difference between misbids and misexplanations, and the very logical reasons why that difference exists. The appellant was intrigued. And now the appellant's wife (and continuing bridge partner) is Secretary of the South Canberra Bridge Club, the appellant is President of the South Canberra Bridge Club, and every Tuesday evening the appellant serves as an unpaid intern to the Chief Director of Australia, hoping that with this on-the-job training he can upgrade his current qualification of Club Director to Congress Director. George Orwell, Politics and the English Language (1946) "One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits....." 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 Feb 27 07:33:46 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:33:46 -0800 Subject: [blml] Edgar's writing on L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902252226o430a7b7dnf9b41da6b9eb15c7@mail.gmail.com><008501c99801$207a8760$0302a8c0@Mildred><003301c9984d$800f2630$0302a8c0@Mildred><19415D8021984976AA3EB6B4868E4777@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0902261530u3520a594he5b0b63dae295264@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A95D5AA09FF4F9096C8AF2603909D60@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Jerry Fusselman" > [Marvin] > > In Edgar's series "Appeals Committee," published in the Bridge > World > 1981-1983, he gave an example (Volume 1, page 8) in which he would > give the non-offenders their likely result had there been no > infraction, but would give the offending side zero matchpoints! > No, > not as a PP, but as a score adjustment. Obviously he did not > believe > this was illegal. > > [Jerry] > > In this example, was there exactly one infraction, and did Edgar > hypothesize the NOS taking some action other than what they did at > the > table? There was one UI infraction, and it was a hypothetical case, not a real one. > > In other words, did Edgar recommend giving positive weight to > possible > NOS actions that they could have taken at the table, but did not? I don't know what that means. He said an AC should ask, "What would have been the likely result had there been no infraction? Then, they try to restore that result, occasionally giving the offenders the worst of it or a lot, depending on the heinousness of the offense." > > Also, is this a case where he decided the score adjustment he > wanted > to make first, and then just did it---trusting his intuition more > than > the laws? As I said, this sounded like it came from the superseded laws, not the 1975 version. My point is that Edgar did not necessarily feel obligated to base the offenders' adjusted score on the assumption of no infraction. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 27 08:52:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:52:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0902261901q1d747b0fsceaf255e3a7f33b0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002d01c998b0$49e68540$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:01 AM Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) > Marv wrote: > >> [Robert] - snip of language I don't understand - Marv > > Grattan said he did not understand it either, so let me try to > rephrase some of Robert's points in four different ways: > > The best evidence of what the NOS would have done had X occurred is > what they did when X occurred. > > Directors should use the best evidence they can find. > > Any estimate of probabilities requires an assumption---some mention of > what to assume---some condition of what holds. > > It is perverse to ask someone what they would do under situation X > when they were only a few minutes ago in situation X and took a > specific action. > > Do you, or Grattan, understand any better now? Since neither of you > ask any questions about it, it is hard to help you understand it, but > I tried. > > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ You are not exploring what "was at all probable" when OS bid 3H. The law refers to a matter of probability not of actuality. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 08:52:47 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:52:47 -0600 Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902262352t34d8dba2w15006c24154262a6@mail.gmail.com> I agree with Robert's and David's example that it sounds like the law as Marvin and Grattan want to interpret it creates perverse incentives. Here is another category of perverse incentives created by any of the versions mentioned by Steve or endorsed by Marvin and Grattan. This one I find even worse. The perverse incentive: The more likely the infraction is to improve your table result, the lower the penalty of doing the wrong thing and being caught rather than doing the right thing. Demonstration: If every path from the UI-indicated action leads to a better score than the UI-contraindicated action, Marvin's suggestion will not hurt you. But if the UI is weak or nonexistent, the director can probably find a penalty in an alternate post-"infraction" Example 1: 100% egregious. You open 1NT and partner bids 4H. Partner's pained look shows that he forgot we are playing Texas transfers. He meant 4H as a signoff. If you bid 4S next like you should and then partner bids 5H, that would be exclusion keycard in your system, and you can't pass that either. Whether the opponents know it or not, you know for sure that using the UI cannot hurt, for you are trading a sure zero for a possible positive score. You might make 4H, and even if the director finds a way to give you down 1, you still avoided the zero. (PPs are rare, and anyway a slight complication to the example would remove them from consideration) Example 2: 0% egregious. You prealerted the opponents that you always wait 3 seconds before calling in balancing seat to attempt to avoid transmitting UI. You did wait three seconds in balancing seat, as always, but these opponents called the director anyway, and this director ruled against you somehow, and now there are many followups in the auction and play of the hand that he can find to give you a lower score. Here there was no true UI, and precisely for that reason, several of the possible alternate post-"infraction" actions would have led to a worse score than either the table result or the "noninfraction" result. These are extreme examples, but they illustrate how the more egregious the use of UI and the more likely taking the UI-indicated action would be to obtain a higher table result, the less likely a Marvin- or Grattan-style search for alternate post-infraction results will hurt you. And that's a perverse incentive. This means that the innocent pay larger penalties than the guilty. Instead of what Marvin and Grattan suggest, I believe that lots of possible post-infraction bad results should work to the advantage of the OS, for they are actually evidence of no true infraction. Conversely, no post-infraction bad results are evidence that the infraction is real. It is not difficult for a good economist to prove this---it is a simple exercise in microeconomics. On the other hand, I have seen very little interest on BLML the incentives our laws create. Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 27 09:19:46 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:19:46 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP><001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com><008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902261922ra534211q4ed6bcf37c279519@mail.gmail.com> <200902270359.n1R3xmiV006988@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <003401c998b4$2929a4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >> >>So, what would be a longer version be that has same meaning that >>Grattan understands in the current version? Is my suggestion >>adequate? Does it convey the full meaning that Grattan, or Marv, or >>Richard, finds in the law? >> >> > "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most >> > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of >> > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior >> > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the >> > irregularity." > > All that was needed was a simple e.g. or footnote like the classic > L75 footnote in 1997, now incorporated into L75. We need it for > the current L25, and obviously it could help for L12c, > > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) > +=+ For much of the world the question is unimportant since 12C1(c) applies. The Drafting Subcommittee recognized that there would continue to be some who wished to apply the former 1987/97 law and provided the option. Since this had been well understood, in the Subcommittee's opinion including mine, in the past, no need for change was considered to exist. Hence there were no additional words and no footnote. The cry was heard "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and my general inclination to fix language was quietened. Because we had submissions from Adam and another in the ACBL the point was discussed in the Subcommittee and their suggestion for addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" was rejected. When 3H is adjudged an unlawful action in the example, for the OS the Director must judge what might have occurred with some degree of probability either had the infraction not occurred ('Pass') or after the 3H bid. That is the purport of 'at all probable' unrestricted by 'had the irregularity not occurred'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 27 09:27:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:27:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902262352t34d8dba2w15006c24154262a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <004d01c998b5$2f3cb520$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:52 AM Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) >I agree with Robert's and David's example that it sounds like the law > as Marvin and Grattan want to interpret it creates perverse > incentives. > +=+ For 'Grattan' read 'the Drafting Subcommittee' - no division on this has emerged. See my parallel response to Tony Musgrove today. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 27 09:43:27 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:43:27 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902262352t34d8dba2w15006c24154262a6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <008001c998b7$78204e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:52 AM Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) > > This means that the innocent pay larger penalties than the guilty. > Instead of what Marvin and Grattan suggest, I believe that lots of > possible post-infraction bad results should work to the advantage of > the OS, for they are actually evidence of no true infraction. < > Jerry Fusselman > +=+ To quote a Subcommittee colleague from the ACBL: "I am as surprised as you to see Law 12C1(e) written as it is in the ACBL lawbook" I think Jerry might do Marvin and me the honour of substituting 'the DSC' for our names. We are only supporting the view taken by the Drafting Subcommittee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 10:03:20 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:03:20 -0600 Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <008001c998b7$78204e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <2b1e598b0902262352t34d8dba2w15006c24154262a6@mail.gmail.com> <008001c998b7$78204e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902270103s5b2664d7lfb5764b835614b79@mail.gmail.com> > +=+ To quote a Subcommittee colleague from the ACBL: > ? ? ? ?"I am as surprised as you to see Law 12C1(e) written as it > is in the ACBL lawbook" > ? ? ? ?I think Jerry might do Marvin and me the honour of > substituting 'the DSC' for our names. We are only supporting > the view taken by the Drafting Subcommittee. > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?~ Grattan ~ ?+=+ > I was only looking for a label for the view. A convenient name. The thread was started by Marvin, and very quickly endorsed by Grattan. I have only the highest respect for Marvin and Grattan, and they may well be right in everything they write. I did not know that all of the DSC endorsed the view. If there is a better name for this requirement to investigate alternate NOS lines *after* the infraction, I would happy to use it. It never occurred to me to call it the DSC view, and even if I had called it that, would BLMLers have known what I was referring to? In this new thread, I am noting a perverse incentive that that interpretation causes, and the name I chose to give it is only supposed to help the reader know what I was talking about quickly. If Marv or Grattan is offended by the title, that was not my intent and I apologize. I am willing to repost under a different title if a good suggestion comes along, but I am not willing to call it The Correct Interpretation or similar. Am I wrong in thinking that most BLMLers would think to themselves, "perverse incentives, who cares?" From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Feb 27 11:20:18 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:20:18 -0000 Subject: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) References: <2b1e598b0902262352t34d8dba2w15006c24154262a6@mail.gmail.com><008001c998b7$78204e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902270103s5b2664d7lfb5764b835614b79@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000a01c998c4$ff875140$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Perverse incentives under Grattan's version of L12C1(e) > +=+ To quote a Subcommittee colleague from the ACBL: > "I am as surprised as you to see Law 12C1(e) written as it > is in the ACBL lawbook" > I think Jerry might do Marvin and me the honour of > substituting 'the DSC' for our names. We are only supporting > the view taken by the Drafting Subcommittee. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I was only looking for a label for the view. A convenient name. The thread was started by Marvin, and very quickly endorsed by Grattan. I have only the highest respect for Marvin and Grattan, and they may well be right in everything they write. I did not know that all of the DSC endorsed the view. If there is a better name for this requirement to investigate alternate NOS lines *after* the infraction, I would happy to use it. It never occurred to me to call it the DSC view, and even if I had called it that, would BLMLers have known what I was referring to? In this new thread, I am noting a perverse incentive that that interpretation causes, and the name I chose to give it is only supposed to help the reader know what I was talking about quickly. If Marv or Grattan is offended by the title, that was not my intent and I apologize. I am willing to repost under a different title if a good suggestion comes along, but I am not willing to call it The Correct Interpretation or similar. Am I wrong in thinking that most BLMLers would think to themselves,"perverse incentives, who cares?" +=+ Personally I regard it s the Historic View, to which I was introduced by Edgar Kaplan around 1986 when discusasing the 1987 law proposals. Since then I know that Bill Schoder practised it, and agrees with it. I cannot say much about ACBL practice, having no experience of it, but I have quoted one well known ACBL TD who supports the view that this subsection of the law should not have added to it the words that the WBF DSC rejected. Examples of effects of any 'perverse incentive' have not been reported to the DSC during its discussions. So we found nothing to legislate against that was not already easily dealt with under the existing 1987/1997 codes. And I take no offence. My exposure demands a thick skin. I merely think the view should not be regarded as just a personal one. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 27 15:05:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:05:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <002d01c998b0$49e68540$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0902261901q1d747b0fsceaf255e3a7f33b0@mail.gmail.com> <002d01c998b0$49e68540$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: I can't apply L12C1(c), but I had always assumed that the probabilities mentioned in that law referred only to if the irregularity had not occurred. Is that true? In other words, could you insert "if the irregularity had not occurred" into that law and not change its meaning? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 27 15:16:23 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:16:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0902261741v35f81273jb875ac543afe4b16@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0902261741v35f81273jb875ac543afe4b16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Feb 26, 2009, at 8:41 PM, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > [Jerry] > > Everyone agrees that had there been no irregularity, the auction > would > have been 1S-P-2S-P; P-P. Not everyone. > With the irregularity, 3H was not a possible contract, because the > NOS bid 3S. But maybe it was. > [Marv] > Baloney. It was a possible contract when it was bid. > > [Jerry] > > According to Marv, was 1S a possible contract solely because it was > possible when it was bid? If Marvin cannot understand Adam's or > Robert's posts on this issue, he might not understand mine either. > But I will try again: > > What I meant was, 3H was not a possible contract with the infraction > in exactly the same way that 1S or pass out is not a possible contract > without the infraction, because we have the evidence at the table. I > thought this was obvious, as far as it goes. > > I respect Marv's opinion, so I will ask another question about his > post. "...had the irregularity not occurred". What was the irregularity? East's 3H bid was a legal call. The irregularity in question was not the bid itself, but rather East's violation of the procedural requirements of L16C, choosing from among LAs one that might have been suggested by the UI conveyed by partner's huddle. But had there been no huddle there would have been no UI, hence the irregularity would not have occurred. And we can -- indeed, must -- presume that in that situation, with no irregularity having occurred, East would still bid 3H, else we are calling him a cheat: saying, in effect, that his 3H call was consciously based on the UI, and would not have been made without it. And the hypothetical situation in which there is no huddle and no irregularity, in which East bids 3H legally, exists in "probability space". The auction would have been the same as it was to that point, but the action and the consequent table feel would have been entirely different, and we are free to judge the (presumably small but not zero) probability that South would not have bid 3S, unconstrained by the knowledge that he did so (with probability 1) in the actual situation that occurred at the table. If we get a bit creative with our interpretation, maybe we can decide that the ACBL's (accidental?) misprinting of L12C2(e)(ii) need not make any difference in application. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Feb 27 15:32:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:32:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <0A6A4F7086E54854B269E0F9907BA29F@erdos> References: <200902251528.n1PFSXbh010445@cfa.harvard.edu> <49A74555.9080202@nhcc.net> <0A6A4F7086E54854B269E0F9907BA29F@erdos> Message-ID: <206C7147-FDB0-4B7A-9979-B22B4414EF73@starpower.net> On Feb 26, 2009, at 9:05 PM, David Grabiner wrote: > "Steve Willner" > >>> From: "David Grabiner" >>> >>> If 2H was going down and E-W see that it had no play, they >>> probably won't >>> call >>> the TD, and if they don't, then N-S have to get -100 because that >>> was the >>> table >>> result. But if the TD is called (because E-W aren't sure that 2H >>> is down), >>> and >>> determines that 2H making was not at all probable, should he >>> still give -200 >>> to >>> N-S? >> >> The NOS got +100, but without the infraction, they would have been >> -100. >> No damage, no adjustment. Again I don't see a problem. > > What do you do for the offending side here? If the TD is not > called, the > offenders get -100. If the TD is called, then -200 is the least > favorable score > that was at all probable, and there was an infraction; should he > give the > offenders -200? > > I don't like a situation in which the NOS must call the TD and > request an > adjusted score in order to give the opponents a proper score. Steve is right here. If the TD is called, he may not give the offenders -200, because he has no legal authority to do so. He may adjust the score only "when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred," not the case here. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Feb 27 16:55:25 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:55:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <003401c998b4$2929a4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902261922ra534211q4ed6bcf37c279519@mail.gmail.com> <200902270359.n1R3xmiV006988@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> <003401c998b4$2929a4a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:19:46 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "..... the marble eyelids are not wet > If it could weep it could arise and go." > ('Grief' - E.B.Browning) > "When there are no tears in the eyes > the pain is inside" > (Child sitting in the rubble of > her Gaza home, interviewed on TV) > ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tony Musgrove" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 3:59 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) > > >>> >>> So, what would be a longer version be that has same meaning that >>> Grattan understands in the current version? Is my suggestion >>> adequate? Does it convey the full meaning that Grattan, or Marv, or >>> Richard, finds in the law? >>> >>> > "(ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most >>> > unfavorable result that was at all probable had different players of >>> > like standard been seated at the table---with the same actions prior >>> > to the irregularity and potentially different actions after the >>> > irregularity." >> >> All that was needed was a simple e.g. or footnote like the classic >> L75 footnote in 1997, now incorporated into L75. We need it for >> the current L25, and obviously it could help for L12c, >> >> Cheers, >> >> Tony (Sydney) >> > +=+ For much of the world the question is unimportant since > 12C1(c) applies. This is not necessarily true. There is a good, justifiable method of calculating probabilities, used in L12C1(c), L12C1e(i), and for the conditional "had the irregularity not occurred" in L12C1e(ii). You are saying that a different method of calculating probabilities should be used in for the conditional "had the irregularity occurred" in L12C1e(ii). If the WBFLC just says that this method of probabilities is to be used, then technically it would apply to all methods of calculating probabilities. So if the WBFLC was to assert that actual table results should be replaced with probabilities based on players of like ability, it really should say that the standard method of calculating probabilities should be used except only for calculating the probability had the irregularity not occured in in L12C1e(ii). (I am not sure, but I am guessing that this method of calculating probabilities is used only in the bidding, not the play.) > The Drafting Subcommittee recognized that > there would continue to be some who wished to apply the > former 1987/97 law and provided the option. Are you saying that the director may use these probabilities (the probabilities had the irregularity occurred) but does not have to if the director chooses not to? I think that's what your TD wanted. That would be reasonable, because then players who deliberately use UI, because they can see there otherwise is little chance of loss, can be punished. But you would have to clarify this too. There are some people, myself included, who would read this as director obligation. > Since this had > been well understood, > in the Subcommittee's opinion including > mine, in the past, no need for change was considered to exist. > Hence there were no additional words and no footnote. The > cry was heard "if it ain't broke don't fix it", and my general > inclination to fix language was quietened. Because we had > submissions from Adam and another in the ACBL the point > was discussed in the Subcommittee and their suggestion for > addition of "had the irregularity not occurred" was rejected. > When 3H is adjudged an unlawful action in the example, > for the OS the Director must judge what might have occurred > with some degree of probability either had the infraction not > occurred ('Pass') or after the 3H bid. That is the purport of > 'at all probable' unrestricted by 'had the irregularity not > occurred'. That is not really the issue. I am very comfortable assigning probabilities to these events. Without any conditional, there is a probability of 0 for all events that did not occur, a probability of 1 for all events that did occur. Then of course, the ACBL rewrite is a nice clarification that does not change the meaning of the laws. The problem is the addition of a conditional that is not in the laws and not used for the other L12C decisions. And that on the face of it, seems irrationally inefficient. From adam at tameware.com Fri Feb 27 18:44:23 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:44:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <200902270359.n1R3xmiV006988@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> References: <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <001701c996cf$336bcfb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902251128p7e85f629r5d85843475dd0492@mail.gmail.com> <008601c99801$20f42430$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902261922ra534211q4ed6bcf37c279519@mail.gmail.com> <200902270359.n1R3xmiV006988@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: <694eadd40902270944m5194dfe6ta1d78a1318961c7b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Tony Musgrove wrote: > > All that was needed was a simple e.g. or footnote like the classic > L75 footnote in 1997, now incorporated into L75. ?We need it for > the current L25, and obviously it could help for L12c, A footnote might have helped. I don't think an example would have been useful. We've had Marv's example for years, but it hasn't allowed us to induce the principle he applied. -- Adam Wildavsky ? ?www.tameware.com From jfusselman at gmail.com Fri Feb 27 19:32:07 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:32:07 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0902261741v35f81273jb875ac543afe4b16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0902271032t1e33058fsb12e78ab8e7a739c@mail.gmail.com> Eric Landau wrote: > > "...had the irregularity not occurred". ?What was the irregularity? > East's 3H bid was a legal call. ?The irregularity in question was not > the bid itself, but rather East's violation of the procedural > requirements of L16C, choosing from among LAs one that might have > been suggested by the UI conveyed by partner's huddle. ?But had there > been no huddle there would have been no UI, hence the irregularity > would not have occurred. ?And we can -- indeed, must -- presume that > in that situation, with no irregularity having occurred, East would > still bid 3H, else we are calling him a cheat: saying, in effect, > that his 3H call was consciously based on the UI, and would not have > been made without it. > > And the hypothetical situation in which there is no huddle and no > irregularity, in which East bids 3H legally, exists in "probability > space". ?The auction would have been the same as it was to that > point, but the action and the consequent table feel would have been > entirely different, and we are free to judge the (presumably small > but not zero) probability that South would not have bid 3S, > unconstrained by the knowledge that he did so (with probability 1) in > the actual situation that occurred at the table. > > If we get a bit creative with our interpretation, maybe we can decide > that the ACBL's (accidental?) misprinting of L12C2(e)(ii) need not > make any difference in application. > I wonder if this kind of thinking has been documented in any casebooks. If we apply it to Marv's example, we could easily decide that the NOS get +200 for 3H down 2. That's a difference. Jerry Fusselman From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Feb 27 23:48:31 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:48:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan Message-ID: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> There have been occasional, but repeated statements by blmlers that they have problems understanding Grattan. I must be perverse or more perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the slightest difficulty understanding him and never have. (And I can't say the same about many postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the problem? Is it because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable English? Puzzled (JE) From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Feb 28 00:42:23 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:42:23 +0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> Message-ID: <49A87A5F.3070504@talktalk.net> [Jeff Easterson ] There have been occasional, but repeated statements by blmlers that they have problems understanding Grattan. I must be perverse or more perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the slightest difficulty understanding him and never have. (And I can't say the same about many postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the problem? Is it because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable English? Puzzled (JE) [Nigel] *Clever* BLMLers understand Grattan's interpretation of the laws. The problem is with *average* BLMLers and players. We also find that the laws themselves are unclear. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 28 02:29:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:29:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A87A5F.3070504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <004301c99944$02459430$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:42 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan > [Jeff Easterson ] There have been occasional, but repeated statements > by blmlers that they have problems understanding Grattan. I must be > perverse or more perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the > slightest difficulty understanding him and never have. (And I can't say > the same about many postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the > problem? Is it because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable > English? Puzzled (JE) > > [Nigel] > *Clever* BLMLers understand Grattan's interpretation of the laws. The problem is with *average* BLMLers and players. We also find that the laws themselves are unclear. > +=+ My longstanding belief is that statements of or about law and regulation should be precise and of ineluctable meaning. I do not always succeed and I do accept improvements offered by others. I would change the text of the laws for greater clarity in some places but the decision to reword has to be a corporate one. People who have lived with a law for years tend to be comfortable with it as it is, even if the language is arguably problematic. However, Law 12C1(e)(ii) communicates to me with entire clarity and my difficulty is to grasp how others find the statement it makes confusing. Part of the difficulty, of course, derives from the tendency of 12C1(e) scores to breach the limits of the objectives set in 12B1. Another aspect is that an adjusted score is discretionary and takes the place of any score obtained in play; the auction may be rolled back to a point at which the infraction occurred and at which the probabilities are to be assessed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Feb 28 12:33:09 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:33:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 17:48:31 -0500, Jeff Easterson wrote: > There have been occasional, but repeated statements by blmlers that they > have problems understanding Grattan. I must be perverse or more > perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the slightest difficulty > understanding him and never have. (And I can't say the same about many > postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the problem? Is it > because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable English? Puzzled > (JE) As near as I can tell, if people have a sufficient understanding of probabilities, they cannot understand the phrase "if the irregularity had occurred" as referrring to anything other than the actual table result. In that case, it can be removed from the law without effect. Grattan has said that this makes sense to most people as meaning something different. The discussion would have stalled at this impasse, but Grattan explained how to interpret this phrase. He/the DSC/historially adds a hypothetical "for players of like ability". I think that was a substantial contribution to moving the discussion forward. Am I understanding Grattan correctly? I think so, but tell me if I am not. Here is what I do not understand. As near as I can tell, it is practice to ignore the actual table result for favor of these probabilities, for the auction. Does that also hold for the play? I really don't know. It's completely illogical for it to be that way, but I cannot recall otherwise. For example, a hesitation auction pushes the opps to 4S, down one when declarer misguesses the location of a queen. (4H was making.) Does the OS get -420 for their score? Has any director ever made that ruling? I have asked about the application of L12C1c. In the above example, would the NOS get a split score between +140 and +170? In other words, do we also base these probabilities on what would have happened had the hand been played by different people of like ability? One blmler assures me that the actual table result is ignored, leading to that split score. But I would like confirmation, because I don't recall ever seeing that. Grattan has found a director who would like to be able to give the OS the most unfavorable result that was all possible. Does this director do this all of the time? Or is it selective (say when he suspects the OS should have known better than to use the UI)? From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Sat Feb 28 13:12:50 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:12:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49A87A5F.3070504@talktalk.net> References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A87A5F.3070504@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49A92A42.4010100@jldata.fi> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Jeff Easterson ] There have been occasional, but repeated statements by > blmlers that they have problems understanding Grattan. I must be > perverse or more perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the > slightest difficulty understanding him and never have. (And I can't say > the same about many postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the > problem? Is it because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable > English? Puzzled (JE) > > [Nigel] > *Clever* BLMLers understand Grattan's interpretation of the laws. The problem is with *average* BLMLers and players. We also find that the laws themselves are unclear. > > [Juuso] > Thank you very much, now I know where I belong. :) Can you be so kind and clarify where we in We also find ..belongs, Clever ones or average, so I will know, if laws are unclear or not to me. Best regards Juuso > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Sat Feb 28 13:19:30 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:19:30 +0200 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> Message-ID: <49A92BD2.3010405@jldata.fi> Jeff Easterson wrote: > There have been occasional, but repeated statements by blmlers that they > have problems understanding Grattan. I must be perverse or more > perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the slightest difficulty > understanding him and never have. (And I can't say the same about many > postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the problem? Is it > because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable English? Puzzled (JE) > [Juuso] > Impeccable English harly is synonym of easy English. It is often difficult to not native speaker probably sometimes also to american ones. > Best regards Juuso > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Sat Feb 28 14:14:15 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:14:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49A92BD2.3010405@jldata.fi> References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A92BD2.3010405@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <000001c999a6$752500f0$5f6f02d0$@com> [Juuso] Impeccable English hardly is synonym of easy English. It is often difficult to not native speaker probably sometimes also to American ones. [DALB] And all the world over, each nation's the same - They've simply no notion of playing the game. They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won, And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun. Michael Flanders, A Song of Patriotic Prejudice In another part of the forest, these English words: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress. have been translated into these French words: Selon ces Lois, une formulation ou une action constituant une revendication ou une concession de lev?es ne peuvent se rapporter qu?aux lev?es autres que la lev?e en cours. Now, this means that in France you may not claim the trick currently in progress, whereas in England you may (as long as you claim some future tricks also). Various pompous oaves (a back-formation from the principle that an oaf is a man who fails to use his loaf) opined that a French Director was "misreading and misunderstanding the Law" when she had done nothing more than to read aright (or adroit, as they say in her tongue) the words in the Code. You may say that the French translators were at fault, but I - with Nigel Guthrie at my right hand and Juuso at my left - will maintain that the English (and citizens of their colonies, bien entendu) were the more to blame for writing untranslatable gibberish in the first place. For well it was almost said by the bard: In yon straight path a thousand Is redoubled down three - Now, who will stand on either hand And keep the Bridge with me? David Burn London, England From craigstamps at comcast.net Sat Feb 28 17:46:01 2009 From: craigstamps at comcast.net (craig) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 11:46:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A92BD2.3010405@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <003301c999c4$670ec230$1a2d2544@craigjkd4vrl7u> There assuredly are substantial differences between American english and the variety spoken by the more literate in the UK. Looking under the bonnet is something a swain might do to behold her lovely face, rather than the act of a mechanic inspecting the engine. The boot is half of a pair of rugged footwear, while we call that storage compartment the trunk. We have no lorry drivers here in the states...they drive trucks, a term that does NOT describe railway cars. Colour, honour and valour have been stripped of their "u" s, whilst using the spelling centre for what is in media res will assuredly trigger the wrath of your spelchek. Truly we often are "two great nations separated by a common language." Examples abound, and I am sure the language of our antipodean brethren differs somewhat as do a few of the phrases found north of the 49th parallel on our continent. That being said, there is very little that Grattan writes that is in any way unclear. He is clearly a forthright gentleman with a keen understanding of the laws he has helped to mold (though please remember that an elepant is a horse formed by a committee) and consistently has strived (striven?) on this list to express his views and the official WBF and laws committee rules with the greatest clarity and consistency possible while plainly differentiating what are solely his own opinions. There has never been any attempt at or decline into obfuscation...except perhaps by those who disagree with the interpretations he provides. It is not hard to understand what Grattan is writing...at least not nearly so hard as to interpret the scrivenings or off beat opining of some of the other contributors to the list. Not that this makes Grattan's expressed views uniformly optimal, for all that they may be accurate, nor should it discourage discussion in any measure. But unwarranted carping and criticism cost us David Stevenson a few years back to the great detriment of the list. We must take care not to disparage Grattan Endicott in any manner; he is an asset to bridge and to BLML without question, and even when I find myself in disagreement with his positions I cannot help but respect them. Perhaps if you wish to understand him better you should read what he has written more carefully. By the by, the quotations he uses at the top of his posts are consistently interesting and frequestly more to the point that one could possibly have expected. I might wonder of he is related to Bartlett :-) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lapinjatka" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 7:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan > Jeff Easterson wrote: >> There have been occasional, but repeated statements by blmlers that they >> have problems understanding Grattan. I must be perverse or more >> perverse than yet acknowledged: I don't have the slightest difficulty >> understanding him and never have. (And I can't say the same about many >> postings by other blmlers.) What is exactly the problem? Is it >> because he has few typos? Because he uses impeccable English? Puzzled >> (JE) >> > [Juuso] >> Impeccable English harly is synonym of easy English. It is often >> difficult to not native speaker probably sometimes also to american ones. >> > Best regards Juuso > >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 28 18:27:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 17:27:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A92BD2.3010405@jldata.fi> <000001c999a6$752500f0$5f6f02d0$@com> Message-ID: <000801c999c9$d7ef4bf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan [Juuso] Impeccable English hardly is synonym of easy English. It is often difficult to not native speaker probably sometimes also to American ones. [DALB] And all the world over, each nation's the same - They've simply no notion of playing the game. They argue with umpires, they cheer when they've won, And they practise beforehand, which ruins the fun. Michael Flanders, A Song of Patriotic Prejudice In another part of the forest, these English words: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress. have been translated into these French words: Selon ces Lois, une formulation ou une action constituant une revendication ou une concession de lev?es ne peuvent se rapporter qu'aux lev?es autres que la lev?e en cours. Now, this means that in France you may not claim the trick currently in progress, whereas in England you may (as long as you claim some future tricks also). Various pompous oaves (a back-formation from the principle that an oaf is a man who fails to use his loaf) opined that a French Director was "misreading and misunderstanding the Law" when she had done nothing more than to read aright (or adroit, as they say in her tongue) the words in the Code. You may say that the French translators were at fault, but I - with Nigel Guthrie at my right hand and Juuso at my left - will maintain that the English (and citizens of their colonies, bien entendu) were the more to blame for writing untranslatable gibberish in the first place. For well it was almost said by the bard: In yon straight path a thousand Is redoubled down three - Now, who will stand on either hand And keep the Bridge with me? David Burn London, England +=+ However, such is the abysmal quality of my French that I was left uneasy reading 'peuvent' in the above where I could well have written 'ne peut se rapporter'. I wonder if my French mistress is available somewhere to receive complaints..... (and please be careful with the translation of this). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sat Feb 28 21:30:46 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 20:30:46 +0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49A92A42.4010100@jldata.fi> References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A87A5F.3070504@talktalk.net> <49A92A42.4010100@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <49A99EF6.7010407@talktalk.net> [Lapinjatka] Thank you very much, now I know where I belong. :) Can you be so kind and clarify where we in We also find ..belongs, Clever ones or average, so I will know, if laws are unclear or not to me. [Nigel] I was just speaking for players, like me, who find it hard to understand Bridge laws and Grattan's explanations of them. Some Clever BLMLers are able to understand their meaning or at least discern the intent of the law-makers. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Feb 28 22:12:36 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:12:36 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <49A86DBF.1000003@aol.com> <49A92BD2.3010405@jldata.fi> <000001c999a6$752500f0$5f6f02d0$@com> Message-ID: <006e01c999e9$6a876e60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 1:14 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan (prior content omitted) "For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress. have been translated into these French words: Selon ces Lois, une formulation ou une action constituant une revendication ou une concession de lev?es ne peuvent se rapporter qu'aux lev?es autres que la lev?e en cours. Now, this means that in France you may not claim the trick currently in progress, whereas in England you may (as long as you claim some future tricks also)." (subsequent content omitted) ........................................................................................................... +=+ Sometimes, David, you open up a whole new vista. Now I must surely sink deep into my armchair, close my eyes, and ponder whether the English text allows me to claim the trick currently in progress and concede the remainder. ~ Grattan ~ +=+