From henk at amsterdamned.org Sun Mar 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:01:01 +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 Mar 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:01:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for February 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 98 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 83 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 60 ehaa (at) starpower.net 60 darkbystry (at) wp.pl 58 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 55 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 49 svenpran (at) online.no 37 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 32 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 27 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 23 john (at) asimere.com 17 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 16 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 15 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 11 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 10 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 10 adam (at) tameware.com 8 swillner (at) nhcc.net 7 henk (at) ripe.net 7 grabiner (at) alumni.princeton.edu 5 jrhind (at) therock.bm 5 jean-pierre.rocafort (at) meteo.fr 5 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 4 gordonrainsford (at) btinternet.com 4 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 4 Gampas (at) aol.com 3 blml (at) bridgescore.de 2 wjburrows (at) gmail.com 2 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 2 roger-eymard (at) orange.fr 2 posundelin (at) yahoo.se 2 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 2 jjlbridge (at) free.fr 2 jeff.ford (at) gmail.com 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 gampas (at) aol.com 2 craigstamps (at) comcast.net 2 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 2 albert.ohana (at) club-internet.fr 2 adam (at) irvine.com 2 Robin.Barker (at) npl.co.uk 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 schoderb (at) msn.com 1 sater (at) xs4all.nl 1 nbpfemu (at) bigpond.com 1 jrmayne (at) mindspring.com 1 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 1 daves1510 (at) gmail.com 1 bridgeinindia (at) gmail.com 1 anne.jones1 (at) ntlworld.com From nbpfemu at bigpond.com Sun Mar 1 06:47:00 2009 From: nbpfemu at bigpond.com (Noel & Pamela) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:47:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <004301c99944$02459430$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nigel Guthrie" 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 ~ +=+ _________________________ "ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, even THINK that such a word existed? "Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with "unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? If that is the style in which the laws should be written, then I'll take up something simple. Like Rocket Science... regards, Noel _______________________________________________ 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: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: 02/27/09 13:27:00 From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 1 09:43:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:43:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> Message-ID: <000801c99a49$c2772c90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 5:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 11:42 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan > > > "ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have > trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, even > THINK that such a word existed? > > "Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with > "unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? > +=+ That, my dear Noel, is my sense of humour. As I typed it I was thinking "they'll need their dictionaries". You seem to have been the only one to rise to the bait. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Mar 1 11:59:21 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 11:59:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> Message-ID: <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> Ineluctable is a quite normal and usable English word. I use it frequently as do some of my acquaintances. But if you have problems with such words I might suggest a dictionary or google. "Not to be avoided or escaped, inevitable." I see you have done so and assume that solved the problem. So what's the problem? Or shall we start a new thread of Grattan bashing? "What's wrong with 'unavoidable'"? Nothing, just as little as is wrong with 'ineluctable'. It seems strange that anyone would try to dictate to Grattan how he chooses to formulate his comments. Just as strange (and in my experience rare) as someone with a limited vocabulary criticising others with larger vocabularies. I do suppose we could ask Grattan to try to copy George W. Bush in his future formulation of comments but doubt that he'd manage to dispense with adverbs. Ciao, JE Noel & Pamela schrieb: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nigel Guthrie" > 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 ~ +=+ > > _________________________ > > "ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have > trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, even > THINK that such a word existed? > > "Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with > "unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? > > If that is the style in which the laws should be written, then I'll take > up something simple. Like Rocket Science... > > regards, > Noel > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: > 02/27/09 13:27:00 > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 1 15:24:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 14:24:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> Message-ID: <000a01c99a79$5fc86a20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan > I do suppose we could ask Grattan to try to > copy George W. Bush in his future formulation of > comments but doubt that > he'd manage to dispense with adverbs. Ciao, JE > +=+ "Almost all absurdity of conduct arises from the imitation of those whom we cannot resemble" (Samuel Johnson) +=+ From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Mar 1 15:32:35 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:32:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] just to be sure Message-ID: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted score to establish equity. Do you agree? Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long suit is rune for, let us say, -2. This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. JE From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Sun Mar 1 16:22:01 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:22:01 +0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> Message-ID: <49AAA819.2030108@talktalk.net> [Jeff Easterson] So what's the problem? Or shall we start a new thread of Grattan bashing? [Nigel] Who started this thread? :) 1. A game is flawed if only a *few* clever people understand its rules. The rules should be simple enough for *most* ordinary players to understand and to comply with them. Most directors need to understand rules, so that their rulings are reasonably consistent. Most ordinary players need to be able to understand those rulings, to appreciate that they are fair. 2. It is hard to express Bridge rules in simple clear language but rule-makers might do better if they heeded the advice of David Burn, Robert Geller, et al. At my school, two groups of similar ability were taught the same subject but each group had a different teacher. When we compared notes, one group would often say "Wow! that topic was harder than we expected!". The other would say "Really? we didn't realise it was so simple and easy!". Needless to say, the latter group performed better in exams. 3. Some cynics fear that in the real-life legal system, ideals of efficient justice have been subverted by lawyers to maximise their employment. A side-effect is jargon that is impenetrable to the public. Is this a discernible trend in the Bridge microcosm? 4. Game rule-makers have an advantage over real-life law-makers. If the former deem a rule to be too sophisticated or too subjective or too complex, then they can simplify it or drop it altogether. Game rule-makers should seriously consider such an action, whenever the nature of the game would be left virtually unchanged (or even improved) as a result. Particular examples are always contentious but BLMLers have put forward many simplifying suggestions that the WBFLC might reconsider. From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Sun Mar 1 17:22:20 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:22:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> Message-ID: <49AAB63C.5010609@jldata.fi> Jeff Easterson wrote: > Ineluctable is a quite normal and usable English word. I use it > frequently as do some of my acquaintances. But if you have problems with > such words I might suggest a dictionary or google. > > "Not to be avoided or escaped, inevitable." I see you have done so and > assume that solved the problem. So what's the problem? Or shall we > start a new thread of Grattan bashing? "What's wrong with > 'unavoidable'"? Nothing, just as little as is wrong with 'ineluctable'. > It seems strange that anyone would try to dictate to Grattan how he > chooses to formulate his comments. Just as strange (and in my > experience rare) as someone with a limited vocabulary criticising others > with larger vocabularies. I do suppose we could ask Grattan to try to > copy George W. Bush in his future formulation of comments but doubt that > he'd manage to dispense with adverbs. Ciao, JE > > > [Juuso] It is privilege to participate a discussion where people use living and rich language. But if the aim is understand laws meaning it may not be the best way to achieve the goal. Best regards Juuso > Noel & Pamela schrieb: > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Nigel Guthrie" >> 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 ~ +=+ >> >> _________________________ >> >> "ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have >> trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, even >> THINK that such a word existed? >> >> "Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with >> "unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? >> >> If that is the style in which the laws should be written, then I'll take >> up something simple. Like Rocket Science... >> >> regards, >> Noel >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: 270.11.4/1976 - Release Date: >> 02/27/09 13:27:00 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 lapinjatka at jldata.fi Sun Mar 1 21:27:50 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (lapinjatka) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:27:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> Message-ID: I think that ?64B7 says only no rectificaion. Both revokes are still there and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 applies to both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. Best regards Juuso -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [blml] just to be sure ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted score to establish equity. Do you agree? Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long suit is rune for, let us say, -2. This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. JE _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 1 22:28:20 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:28:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> Message-ID: <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as if no revoke had been committed. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of lapinjatka > Sent: 1. mars 2009 21:28 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > I think that ?64B7 says only no rectificaion. Both revokes are still there > and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 applies to > both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. > > Best regards Juuso > > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] just to be sure > > ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both > sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted > score to establish equity. Do you agree? > > Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) > with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He > has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit > is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents > get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays > a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on > the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long > suit is rune for, let us say, -2. > This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. > But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the > 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to > which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. > According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving > an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity > and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. 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 hirsch9000 at verizon.net Sun Mar 1 23:35:03 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 17:35:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> Message-ID: <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net> That minute, if that is what it says, makes what appeared to be simple even more confusing. If no revoke had been committed, equity would be the table score. There has to be an infraction in order to adjust the score. So, I believe that Lapinjata has it right, that there is no rectification (transfer of tricks), but there are still revokes, and the TD restores equity on each one. Regards, Hirsch Sven Pran wrote: > There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have > revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as if > no revoke had been committed. > > Regards Sven > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of lapinjatka >> Sent: 1. mars 2009 21:28 >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >> >> I think that ?64B7 says only no rectificaion. Both revokes are still there >> and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 applies >> > to > >> both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. >> >> Best regards Juuso >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] just to be sure >> >> ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both >> sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted >> score to establish equity. Do you agree? >> >> Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) >> with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He >> has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit >> is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents >> get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays >> a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on >> the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long >> suit is rune for, let us say, -2. >> This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. >> But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the >> 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to >> which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. >> According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving >> an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity >> and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 1 23:42:31 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:42:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> Message-ID: <000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as if no revoke had been committed. Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 2 00:29:14 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 00:29:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> <000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no> I was indeed. And it is my impression that the principle established in that minute was being generalized and carried forward in the current Law 64B7? Regards Sven On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+ Sven is possibly referring to this minute of 1 Nov 2001: > > "The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by > ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of > the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is > made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the > second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. > The committee decided that the Director should deal with > this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have > happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ............................................................................ ......... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > > There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have > revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as if > no revoke had been committed. > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 2 00:39:18 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 00:39:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net> References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net> Message-ID: <000a01c99ac6$f0696190$d13c24b0$@no> Oh, come on! The table score is whatever result exists when play is completed after at least one revoke has been committed by each side.. First Law 64B7 and then Law 64C applies. The director shall decide a likely result on the board had there been no revoke at all. This result is quite possibly different from the table result, and the director should now adjust the score correspondingly. Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Hirsch Davis > Sent: 1. mars 2009 23:35 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > That minute, if that is what it says, makes what appeared to be simple > even more confusing. If no revoke had been committed, equity would be > the table score. There has to be an infraction in order to adjust the score. > > So, I believe that Lapinjata has it right, that there is no > rectification (transfer of tricks), but there are still revokes, and the > TD restores equity on each one. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > Sven Pran wrote: > > There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have > > revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as if > > no revoke had been committed. > > > > Regards Sven > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of lapinjatka > >> Sent: 1. mars 2009 21:28 > >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > >> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > >> > >> I think that ?64B7 says only no rectificaion. Both revokes are still there > >> and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 applies > >> > > to > > > >> both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. > >> > >> Best regards Juuso > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] > >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > >> Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 > >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > >> Subject: [blml] just to be sure > >> > >> ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both > >> sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted > >> score to establish equity. Do you agree? > >> > >> Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) > >> with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He > >> has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit > >> is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents > >> get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays > >> a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on > >> the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long > >> suit is rune for, let us say, -2. > >> This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. > >> But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the > >> 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to > >> which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. > >> According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving > >> an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity > >> and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 2 01:59:13 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 11:59:13 +1100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> Message-ID: Gordon Bower (Alaska, 16th June 2004): >>>"Autochthonous". Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very >>>often. >>> >>>Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, you will hear very >>>frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at >>>least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to >>>discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency >>>in other fields.) >>> >>>Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of >>>the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's >>>general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are >>>allocated alerts." >>> >>>And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be >>>allochtrocuted. Grattan Endicott (England): >>+=+ 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. [snip] Noel Bugeia (Canberra): >"ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have >trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, >even THINK that such a word existed? > >"Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with >"unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? Grattan Endicott (England): +=+ That, my dear Noel, is my sense of humour. As I typed it I was thinking "they'll need their dictionaries". You seem to have been the only one to rise to the bait. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills (Canberra): Dictionaries needed? Yes and no. Contrary to Grattan's assertion, "ineluctable" is not merely a common word in Grattanic English but also a common word in Canberran English and indeed a common word in Hungarian English. The famous Hungarian bridge writer, Geza Ottlik, noted in his magnum opus Adventures in Card Play that describing a squeeze as "inexorable" was a cliche, so henceforth Ottlik would choose to describe a squeeze as "ineluctable". The ineluctable Brown Sticker conventions are prohibited in the qualifying rounds of World Championships, presumably because they are deemed too difficult for non-experts to learn and adopt, so it would be inequitable for experts to be allowed to Brownly Stick non-expert opponents. By the same logic, the squeezes and endplays listed in Adventures in Card Play are inequitably too difficult for non-experts to learn and adopt, so should be listed as Purple Sticker and prohibited in ACBL events under the soon-to-be ACBL Law 12C1(e)(i): "The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending side (and/or non-endplayed side and/or non-squeezed side) is the most favourable result that was likely had the irregularity (and/or endplay and/or squeeze) not occurred". In his short story "Harrison Bergeron", Kurt Vonnegut wrote: "Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains...." 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 Mar 2 02:13:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:13:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net> Message-ID: <000e01c99ad4$243299d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:35 PM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure That minute, if that is what it says, makes what appeared to be simple even more confusing. If no revoke had been committed, equity would be the table score. There has to be an infraction in order to adjust the score. So, I believe that Lapinjata has it right, that there is no rectification (transfer of tricks), but there are still revokes, and the TD restores equity on each one. Regards, Hirsch Sven Pran wrote: > There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have > revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as > if > no revoke had been committed. > > Regards Sven > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of lapinjatka >> Sent: 1. mars 2009 21:28 >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >> >> I think that ?64B7 says only no rectification. Both revokes are still >> there >> and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 applies >> > to > >> both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. >> >> Best regards Juuso >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >> Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 >> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Subject: [blml] just to be sure >> >> ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both >> sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted >> score to establish equity. Do you agree? >> >> Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) >> with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He >> has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit >> is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents >> get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays >> a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on >> the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long >> suit is rune for, let us say, -2. >> This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. >> But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the >> 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to >> which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. >> According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving >> an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity >> and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 2 02:35:41 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:35:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002d01c99ad7$bae696d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Gordon Bower (Alaska, 16th June 2004): > >>>>"Autochthonous". Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very >>>>often. >>>> >>>>Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, you will hear very >>>>frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at >>>>least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to >>>>discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency >>>>in other fields.) >>>> >>>>Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of >>>>the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's >>>>general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are >>>>allocated alerts." >>>> >>>>And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be >>>>allochtrocuted. > > Grattan Endicott (England): > >>>+=+ 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. > > [snip] > > Noel Bugeia (Canberra): > >>"ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have >>trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, >>even THINK that such a word existed? >> >>"Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with >>"unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? > > Grattan Endicott (England): > > +=+ That, my dear Noel, is my sense of humour. As I typed it I was > thinking "they'll need their dictionaries". You seem to have been the > only one to rise to the bait. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills (Canberra): > > Dictionaries needed? > > Yes and no. Contrary to Grattan's assertion, "ineluctable" is not > merely a common word in Grattanic English but also a common word in > Canberran English and indeed a common word in Hungarian English. The > famous Hungarian bridge writer, Geza Ottlik, noted in his magnum opus > Adventures in Card Play that describing a squeeze as "inexorable" was > a cliche, so henceforth Ottlik would choose to describe a squeeze as > "ineluctable". > > The ineluctable Brown Sticker conventions are prohibited in the > qualifying rounds of World Championships, presumably because they are > deemed too difficult for non-experts to learn and adopt, so it would > be inequitable for experts to be allowed to Brownly Stick non-expert > opponents. > > By the same logic, the squeezes and endplays listed in Adventures in > Card Play are inequitably too difficult for non-experts to learn and > adopt, so should be listed as Purple Sticker and prohibited in ACBL > events under the soon-to-be ACBL Law 12C1(e)(i): > > "The score assigned in place of the actual score for a non-offending > side (and/or non-endplayed side and/or non-squeezed side) is the most > favourable result that was likely had the irregularity (and/or > endplay and/or squeeze) not occurred". > > In his short story "Harrison Bergeron", Kurt Vonnegut wrote: > > "Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some > sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage > of their brains...." > > > 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 Mon Mar 2 02:54:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:54:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no> Message-ID: <003701c99ad9$ccd06540$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >I was indeed. > > And it is my impression that the principle established in that minute was > being generalized and carried forward in the current Law 64B7? > > Regards Sven > > On Behalf Of Grattan >> +=+ Sven is possibly referring to this minute of 1 Nov 2001: >> >> "The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by >> ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of >> the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is >> made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the >> second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. >> The committee decided that the Director should deal with >> this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have >> happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C." >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ............................................................................ > ......... >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >> >> >> There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides >> have >> revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as > if >> no revoke had been committed. >> >> Regards Sven From ardelm at optusnet.com.au Mon Mar 2 04:00:21 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 14:00:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> Message-ID: <200903020300.n2230Ekt006567@mail07.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 11:59 AM 2/03/2009, you wrote: >Gordon Bower (Alaska, 16th June 2004): > > >>>"Autochthonous". Indeed a real word, though not one you hear very > >>>often. > >>> > >>>Its antonym, "allochthonous," on the other hand, you will hear very > >>>frequently -- if you are a geologist in Alaska, and we have at > >>>least one of those on this mailing list. (It was news to me to > >>>discover, after the spelling bee, that the words also have currency > >>>in other fields.) > >>> > >>>Let's see: maybe we can use this to simplify the next edition of > >>>the alert rules: "Autochthonous conventions are part of one's > >>>general bridge knowledge and experience, but all allochthons are > >>>allocated alerts." > >>> > >>>And anyone who takes that suggestion seriously ought be > >>>allochtrocuted. > >Grattan Endicott (England): > > >>+=+ 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. > >[snip] > >Noel Bugeia (Canberra): > > >"ineluctable" - oh come on now!!! And you wonder why people have > >trouble understanding this?? Did any of you, other than Grattan, > >even THINK that such a word existed? > > > >"Not to be avoided or escaped; inevitable". What wrong with > >"unavoidable"? Why choose something so obscure? > >Grattan Endicott (England): > >+=+ That, my dear Noel, is my sense of humour. As I typed it I was >thinking "they'll need their dictionaries". You seem to have been the >only one to rise to the bait. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ten years ago or so, Grattan produced a word which was not in my dictionary, however I have forgotten it now. Richard can no doubt look it up in the archives. Australians at least know how to pronounce ineluctable. Since it has more than two syllables it must be hyphenated as ine -f****g-luctable. Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From hirsch9000 at verizon.net Mon Mar 2 05:19:24 2009 From: hirsch9000 at verizon.net (Hirsch Davis) Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:19:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <000e01c99ad4$243299d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net> <000e01c99ad4$243299d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49AB5E4C.2040809@verizon.net> Grattan, The implication from this is that in the case where both sides have revoked, both sides would be considered to be non-offending when the score for each is computed. True? Hirsch Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Sir, I have found you an argument; > but I am not obliged to find you an > understanding." > (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ I wonder if I can make it simpler for you: > In the circumstances cited Law 64B7 tells > us that there is no transfer of tricks. > Law 64C tells us that even when Law 64B7 > applies the Director has a duty to restore equity if > the result obtained is not equitable. > The minute tells us that in the circumstances > envisaged in 64B7 the Director should roll back > the play to the point immediately before the first > revoke and determine equity by what would have > happened had there been no revoke and play had > continued legally. > Does this help? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ...................................................................... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hirsch Davis" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > > That minute, if that is what it says, makes what appeared to be simple > even more confusing. If no revoke had been committed, equity would be > the table score. There has to be an infraction in order to adjust the score. > > So, I believe that Lapinjata has it right, that there is no > rectification (transfer of tricks), but there are still revokes, and the > TD restores equity on each one. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > Sven Pran wrote: > >> There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides have >> revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as >> if >> no revoke had been committed. >> >> Regards Sven >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of lapinjatka >>> Sent: 1. mars 2009 21:28 >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >>> >>> I think that ?64B7 says only no rectification. Both revokes are still >>> there >>> and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 applies >>> >>> >> to >> >> >>> both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. >>> >>> Best regards Juuso >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] >>> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >>> Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: [blml] just to be sure >>> >>> ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both >>> sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted >>> score to establish equity. Do you agree? >>> >>> Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) >>> with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He >>> has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit >>> is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents >>> get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays >>> a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on >>> the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long >>> suit is rune for, let us say, -2. >>> This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. >>> But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the >>> 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to >>> which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. >>> According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving >>> an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity >>> and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. 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 PeterEidt at t-online.de Mon Mar 2 06:33:32 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 06:33:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?just_to_be_sure?= Message-ID: <1Le0mS-0DgJsW0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Hirsch Davis > The implication from this is that in the case where both sides have > revoked, both sides would be considered to be non-offending when the > score for each is computed. ?True? No, false! Tell me one reason why 2 offending sides, each having revoked beforehand, ?shall be considered non-offending ... From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 2 06:39:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:39:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] What is equity? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001601c996be$e36f3ac0$aa4db040$@com> Message-ID: "The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club." 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 Tyler Durden: >every competitor. David Burn: >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 Tyler Durden: >cannot (ex def) do this; [snip] Law 12B1, first sentence: "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage to a non- offending side and to take away any advantage gained by an offending side through its infraction." Law 12B1, Tyler Durden version: "The objective of score adjustment is to permit damages to all non- offending sides, thus giving equitable advantages to all offending sides through their infractions." Richard Hills: I fully agree with David Burn. I fully disagree with Tyler Durden. I can highly recommend Douglas Hofstadter's classic book, "Godel, Escher, Bach". One of its fascinating concepts is that of the Strange Loop. In this debate the Strange Loop is exemplified by Tyler Durden correctly describing equity for the entire group of contestants (what Mr Wolff describes as Protect The Field), but Tyler Durden failing to realise that equity has a different meaning when you push down one level to that of two contestants at the table. "Equity" (or "equitably") appears in the following Laws: * Law 12C1(c) * Law 64C * Law 70A * Law 84D In all of those Laws, the equity involved is fairness, impartiality and evenhanded dealing at the lower level of the two sides at the table, not the higher level of Protecting The Field. Ergo, Tyler Durden's philosophy of equity is correct but irrelevant. Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 08:36:08 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 01:36:08 -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: <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> [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...." [Jerry] I was not speaking to anyone in particular in the first sentence above, but I don't think Marvin perfectly understands what I was trying to say. Maybe I can clarify. By "conditional probability" I refer to the specific kind of probability mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_Probability. I was not referring to Marvin's guess: the conditions that need to be satisfied before a law can be applied (as in, the condition you need before you can apply law 67 is the presence of a defective trick). Instead, I was referring to the conditions you assume to hold before you can compute a conditional probability. What I encouraged open-minded readers to do is to know what the assumed conditions are before computing probabilities. When you cannot articulate the conditions, there is a good chance your probabilities are wrong or nonsensical. That is why so many of us are asking what the assumed conditions are left out at the end of L12C1(e). Who writes that L12C1(e) is fine the way it is and needs no clarification? Marvin, Grattan, and perhaps the entire DSC. Who wishes for clarification? So far, Adam, Robert, Steve, Jeff, Tony, and me. Jerry Fusselman From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 09:06:31 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:06:31 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <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: 2009/2/27 Robert Frick : > 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. No. He is saying that although we've now got L12C1(b) and L12C1(c), which, I suspect, most of the bridge world applies, some (read the ACBL) still wants to use the old L12C2). Therefore L12C1(e) is included in the 2007 laws. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 09:09:55 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:09:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2009/3/2 Jerry Fusselman : > [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...." > > [Jerry] > > I was not speaking to anyone in particular in the first sentence > above, but I don't think Marvin perfectly understands what I was > trying to say. ?Maybe I can clarify. ?By "conditional probability" I > refer to the specific kind of probability mentioned here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_Probability. ?I was not > referring to Marvin's guess: the conditions that need to be satisfied > before a law can be applied (as in, the condition you need before you > can apply law 67 is the presence of a defective trick). ?Instead, I > was referring to the conditions you assume to hold before you can > compute a conditional probability. > > What I encouraged open-minded readers to do is to know what the > assumed conditions are before computing probabilities. ?When you > cannot articulate the conditions, there is a good chance your > probabilities are wrong or nonsensical. ?That is why so many of us are > asking what the assumed conditions are left out at the end of > L12C1(e). > > Who writes that L12C1(e) is fine the way it is and needs no > clarification? ?Marvin, Grattan, and perhaps the entire DSC. Add me in with Marvin, Grattan. I really don't understand what can be misinterpreted here.To me this law is perfectly clear. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > Who wishes for clarification? ?So far, Adam, Robert, Steve, Jeff, Tony, and me. > > Jerry Fusselman > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 10:16:00 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 03:16:00 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49A4498F.3090107@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0903020116o52b679b7h60950055cd20ddd8@mail.gmail.com> [Nigel] 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. [Marv] Weaker, no, less wise, yes. [Jerry] I am not sure why Marv says, "weaker, no," but the justification he gives for saying that 12C1c is unwise seems to me to work against the position he took in this thread. Let's have a look: [Marv] 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. [Jerry] Marv's interpretation of L12C1(e), if I understand it correctly, requires directors to assign probabilities for what would have happened had the infraction not taken place (like they always have) as well as to assign probabilities of what might have happened after the infraction in the auction and play of the hand had the NOS done better (as has never yet happened in an actual published case, so far as we know). I have been looking at the cases from the Nashville summer 2007 ACBL appeals, and it sure looks tough to do what Marv suggests. Instead of one world, "but for the infraction," directors must look at two worlds---they must now also look at the possibilities "after the infraction had the OS done better." Maybe twice the work, maybe more than twice, but this seemingly should earn Marv's scorn with the same words he used in the different context above: "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." Because the new law is at least *twice* as complicated to apply as the old law (if it really means what I have described), it means two sets of probabilities have to be computed, not just one. Try doing that sometime, and you might get quite confused. At least, I do. That's why I think it is more than twice as complicated as the way we are used to. And if computing the second set of probabilities is optional, and only done when the director "wants to do it," then charges of favoritism would seem appropriate. (And I have not even mentioned the other possibility that I think Grattan hinted at, that we are also asked to consider removing the NOS's lucky guesses in the auction and play, even if not deemed a violation, if some players of their ability might have guessed with less luck. Those BLMLer's who claim to usually understand Grattan can doubtless settle whether Grattan meant for this additional study of what-if probabilities after the infraction.) Jerry Fusselman From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 2 10:20:57 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:20:57 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net><000e01c99ad4$243299d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49AB5E4C.2040809@verizon.net> Message-ID: <001a01c99b18$62cd9390$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure Grattan, The implication from this is that in the case where both sides have revoked, both sides would be considered to be non-offending when the score for each is computed. True? Hirsch +=+ Infringements have occurred and this is the basis on which the Director intervenes. He is required to restore equity by compensating for any damage. To determine the equity he is to restore, he rolls back the play to the point before the first revoke and considers the reasonable expectations of each side at that point in a legal auction. These he must balance since he is not awarding a different result to each of the two sides; under the default law he is permitted resort to 12C1(c), but this does not apply where the RA forbids it. Returning to your words, I think you should perhaps say "as though non-offending". They continue to be infractors and I believe it is clear enough that they are not entitled to a split score giving each side the better of it. In my understanding of the matter the Director is required to determine the point of equity between them. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 2 10:54:38 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 03:54:38 -0600 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49A4498F.3090107@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0903020154v60f0f89eqdc6e624a5a88a01f@mail.gmail.com> Marvin L French wrote: > > ?> [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. > Would someone clarify this last sentence? I assume it refers to the proper way to understand L12C1(e). Is Marv saying that the exercise of imagining better actions by the NOS after the infraction applies only to the auction, and not to the play? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 2 11:14:19 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:14:19 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP><2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >> >> What I encouraged open-minded readers to do is to know what the >> assumed conditions are before computing probabilities. When you >> cannot articulate the conditions, there is a good chance your >> probabilities are wrong or nonsensical. That is why so many of us are >> asking what the assumed conditions are left out at the end of >> L12C1(e). >> >> Who writes that L12C1(e) is fine the way it is and needs no >> clarification? Marvin, Grattan, and perhaps the entire DSC. > > Add me in with Marvin, Grattan. I really don't understand what can be > misinterpreted here.To me this law is perfectly clear. > > -- > Kind regards, > Harald Skj?ran >> >> Who wishes for clarification? So far, Adam, Robert, Steve, Jeff, Tony, and me. >> >> Jerry Fusselman >> +=+ We must continue to be helpful if we can. Would it perhaps help if I suggested that there are two sets of probabilities to be assessed? The condition for the first is that the infraction does not occur. The condition for the second is that the infraction does occur. In each of these circumstances the Director is to take note of any outcome that has a measure of probability. From the range of answers to both explorations the Director is to select the one outcome that is least favourable for the offending side. That is the effect of the decision some twenty-plus years ago that the words 'at all probable' would not be limited with addition of "had the irregularity not occurred". On a personal note, perhaps I may be permitted to add that I have never liked this law and in 1985-87 I led the fight on behalf of the EBL to obtain the 12C3 option, first conceded in a footnote, that has since been consolidated into substantive law. It was the view of the EBL Laws Committee of the time that the law inclined excessively to punishment of offenders, contrary to the intent expressed in 'The Scope of the Laws' near the front of the 1987 law book. However I have lived since 1987 with the explanation of the law given by Kaplan when he introduced it. Whereas the basis of the award for the NOS is the most favourable result that was likely had the infraction not occurred, for the OS the award is whatever is adjudged to be the least favourable result that it was at all probable to reach either without the infraction or after the infraction has occurred. The auction is rolled back to the instant before the infraction and, in judging what is at all probable for the OS, it may then be taken forward both through a non-infringing call and through the infringing call. (What I cannot say is that Kaplan necessarily adopted the same stance in the ACBL. If he did not, then examples in his journal would avoid conflict with his stance there.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 2 11:45:48 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:45:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no> <49AB0D97.6010602@verizon.net><000e01c99ad4$243299d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49AB5E4C.2040809@verizon.net> Message-ID: <747F5352290C4CA092E0F951ABC6323A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:19 AM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure Grattan, The implication from this is that in the case where both sides have revoked, both sides would be considered to be non-offending when the score for each is computed. True? No, they revoked; they're cheating bastards. 64C is an equity Law and says when you've done everything else check for equity. All the rest of the laws on revokes are to do with penalties. In the case of 2 sides revoking we ignore all that stuff and go to 64C. It doesn't alter the fact that both sides are cheating bastards though, does it? John Hirsch Grattan wrote: > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Sir, I have found you an argument; > but I am not obliged to find you an > understanding." > (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > +=+ I wonder if I can make it simpler for you: > In the circumstances cited Law 64B7 tells > us that there is no transfer of tricks. > Law 64C tells us that even when Law 64B7 > applies the Director has a duty to restore equity if > the result obtained is not equitable. > The minute tells us that in the circumstances > envisaged in 64B7 the Director should roll back > the play to the point immediately before the first > revoke and determine equity by what would have > happened had there been no revoke and play had > continued legally. > Does this help? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ...................................................................... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hirsch Davis" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:35 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > > That minute, if that is what it says, makes what appeared to be simple > even more confusing. If no revoke had been committed, equity would be > the table score. There has to be an infraction in order to adjust the > score. > > So, I believe that Lapinjata has it right, that there is no > rectification (transfer of tricks), but there are still revokes, and the > TD restores equity on each one. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > Sven Pran wrote: > >> There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides >> have >> revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as >> if >> no revoke had been committed. >> >> Regards Sven >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of lapinjatka >>> Sent: 1. mars 2009 21:28 >>> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >>> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >>> >>> I think that ?64B7 says only no rectification. Both revokes are still >>> there >>> and in both there in non-offending side. The last sentence of ?64 >>> applies >>> >>> >> to >> >> >>> both revoke, one by one. So TD can restore equity. >>> >>> Best regards Juuso >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >>> bounces at amsterdamned.org] >>> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson >>> Sent: 1. maaliskuuta 2009 16:33 >>> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List >>> Subject: [blml] just to be sure >>> >>> ?64B says (?64B7) that there is no rectification (as in A) when both >>> sides revoke to a trick. I assume that the TD can give an adjusted >>> score to establish equity. Do you agree? >>> >>> Example: the classic TD case of declarer playing NT (let us say 3NT) >>> with along suit (AKQxxx and xx) he can run for the necessary tricks. He >>> has only a single stopper in another suit (only the ace) and that suit >>> is led. He has to take his tricks immediately since when the opponents >>> get in they will take 5 tricks in the suit that has been led. He plays >>> a, k and Q in his long suit and the opponent holding the Jxx revokes on >>> the third round and thus wins the fourth round and the opponent's long >>> suit is rune for, let us say, -2. >>> This is a simple case, the TD will give an adjusted (assigned) score. >>> But the declarer makes a meaningless revoke later in play (before the >>> 12th trick). Meaningless in the sense that he doesn't win the trick to >>> which he revoked and it doesn't alter the result. >>> According to ?64B7 there can be no rectification (as in A). But giving >>> an adjusted score is not mentioned in A. So, can the TD restore equity >>> and give the adjusted score? Your opinion(s?) please. 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 > > _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 2 11:51:20 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:51:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no> Message-ID: <97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >I was indeed. By the way guys, it's easy to sort out the mess if opposing sides revoke on different tricks. The minute only applies to the same trick. In this case the cheating bastards get stuffed under equity Law not penalty law. John > > And it is my impression that the principle established in that minute was > being generalized and carried forward in the current Law 64B7? > > Regards Sven > > On Behalf Of Grattan >> +=+ Sven is possibly referring to this minute of 1 Nov 2001: >> >> "The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by >> ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of >> the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is >> made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the >> second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. >> The committee decided that the Director should deal with >> this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have >> happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C." >> >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > ............................................................................ > ......... >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sven Pran" >> To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" >> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 9:28 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure >> >> >> There has been a minute from WBFLC to the effect that when both sides >> have >> revoked during the play on the same board then TD shall restore equity as > if >> no revoke had been committed. >> >> Regards Sven >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 2 12:09:49 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:09:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no> <97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> Message-ID: <001501c99b27$67e2b3b0$37a81b10$@no> On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >I was indeed. > > By the way guys, it's easy to sort out the mess if opposing sides revoke on > different tricks. The minute only applies to the same trick. In this case > the cheating bastards get stuffed under equity Law not penalty law. John > > > > And it is my impression that the principle established in that minute was > > being generalized and carried forward in the current Law 64B7? Sure, the minute addressed only revoke from both sides to the same trick. But the 2007 Law 64B7 has carried the principle from this minute forward to apply also on revokes from opposing sides to different tricks within the same board. Regards Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 2 15:40:49 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 09:40:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <49AAA819.2030108@talktalk.net> References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> <49AAA819.2030108@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <46BAE690-C04B-49CA-B696-C2D4956CD24D@starpower.net> On Mar 1, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Jeff Easterson] > > So what's the problem? Or shall we start a new thread of Grattan > bashing? > > [Nigel] > Who started this thread? :) > > 1. A game is flawed if only a *few* clever people understand its > rules. The rules should be simple enough for *most* ordinary > players to understand and to comply with them. Most directors need > to understand rules, so that their rulings are reasonably > consistent. Most ordinary players need to be able to understand > those rulings, to appreciate that they are fair. In the NFL (American football), games normally last through one hour of game play. If the game is tied at that point, there is a "sudden death" overtime, in which the first team to score wins. If the game is still tied after one 15-minute overtme period, which is extremely rare and unlikely, then if it is a regular season game it ends in a tie, but if it's a playoff game the overtime continues in 15-minute periods until a winner is determined. This past season there was a tie in the NFL. After the game, one of the NFL's top quarterbacks, a veteran of over a decade, revealed to the press that he didn't know the rules, was unaware that it was possible for a game to end in a tie, and would have played differently late in the "fifth quarter" had he known that the game was about to end in a tie. At the time, it appeared as though his failure to try to win the game might well cost his team a spot in the playoffs (they got lucky, and it didn't). Nobody suggested that the game was "flawed". Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 2 16:24:35 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:24:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP><2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ We must continue to be helpful if we can. Would it perhaps > help if I suggested that there are two sets of probabilities to be > assessed? The condition for the first is that the infraction does not > occur. The condition for the second is that the infraction does > occur. In each of these circumstances the Director is to take note > of any outcome that has a measure of probability. From the range > of answers to both explorations the Director is to select the one > outcome that is least favourable for the offending side. I would suggest, along with Grattan, that there are two sets of probabilites to be assessed, but I would put them in different terms. The infraction (in our thread example) was the offender's choice of 3H despite its having been suggested over LAs by the UI arising from his partner's huddle. The first set of probabilities is the one in which the infraction did not occur because the offender hypothetically chose a non-suggested alternative other than 3H. The second set of probabilities is the one in which the infraction did not occur because the offender bid 3H in the absence of UI after his partner hypothetically didn't break tempo. This leaves us where Grattan would like us to be, and allows us to decide that the ACBL's addition of "had the irregulariy not occurred" to L12C1(e)(ii) doesn't change its application. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 2 16:22:32 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:22:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: L12B refers to "expectation"; L12C1 refers to the "probabilities of a number of potential results". No where do the laws define "probability" or "expectation" or say how they are to be determined. As near as I can tell. There are three situations to consider IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S, WHEN IN FACT THEY DEFENDED 3H Suppose L12 requires us to determine what would have happened had the NOS played in 2S, when in fact they defended against 3H. We need to assign probabilities to events such as down one, making, one overtrick, etc. As far as I can tell, everyone defines the goal here as to be to calculate what would have happened had these players played the hand. (This is an important assumption; tell me if you disagree.) The best data is probably to look what other players of similar ability and methods did when they played the hand with spades as trumps. One could calculate the probability of these events assuming everyone played their cards at random. That would be an extremely inefficient method of accomplishing the stated goal, and would not fit common practice. But it would be consistent with the laws. (The other method is to try to look at the cards and try to determine the likely courses of play.) IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S WHEN IN FACT THEY PLAYED 3S What would have happened if the NOS played in 2S instead of 3S? I can't get an answer on this, but I am guessing that standard practice is to assume, unless there is some reason otherwise, that they would have taken the same number of tricks in 2S as they took in 3S. This is extremely efficient. It seems bizarre and absurd, because of the inefficiency, to look at what other pairs did when they played spades as trumps (or to calculate the likely course of play and completely ignore what actually happened). IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 3S WHEN IN FACT THEY DID PLAY IN 3S Now the issue is to decide what would have happened had the NOS played in 3S. When they did play in 3S. The obvious thing, the most efficient thing, the only only non-absurd thing IMO, is to use the table result. We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. This apparently does not fit how some directors would like to direct. They would like to follow a much less efficient method. I am guessing this is selective -- only for the bidding, not the play, and only when the director wants to punish the NOS more than the laws would otherwise achieve. Correct me if I am wrong. There is no sensible way to interpret the laws to allow this selective application. Kaplan and the drafting committee expect that directors would nonselectively use the less efficient method of looking at what players of like ability and methods would have done. I am guessing this has never been done, because seems to realize how impractical it is or even what it would be like if a director did this. Anyway, there is little justification in the laws for being inefficient. And if using this inefficient method is justified, why aren't we using it when the table result is close to the situation to be estimated (when the NOS played in 3S and we want to determine what happened in 2S)? There is no reasonable way to interpret the laws with the selective shifting to inefficient methods. From ehaa at starpower.net Mon Mar 2 16:36:06 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 10:36:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] just to be sure In-Reply-To: <97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no> <97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> Message-ID: <9F11B263-8379-4BDA-9117-6B2D76271924@starpower.net> On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:51 AM, John ((MadDog)) Probst wrote: > By the way guys, it's easy to sort out the mess if opposing sides > revoke on > different tricks. The minute only applies to the same trick. In > this case > the cheating bastards get stuffed under equity Law not penalty > law. John > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >> >>> +=+ Sven is possibly referring to this minute of 1 Nov 2001: >>> >>> "The Chairman quoted the case of a defender who revokes by >>> ruffing and is over-ruffed by declarer who also has a card of >>> the suit led. The committee noted that when the first revoke is >>> made the declarer's side is non-offending and when the >>> second revoke is made the defenders' side is non-offending. >>> The committee decided that the Director should deal with >>> this situation by restoring equity, based on what would have >>> happened if no revoke had occurred, under Law 64C." I agree with John in reading the 2001 minute as applying only to revokes on the same trick. The 2007 law, however, explicitly applies "when both sides have revoked on the same board" [L64B7], which appears to be far more than a mere incorporation of the minute into the subsequent round of law changes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 2 17:32:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 16:32:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no><97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> <9F11B263-8379-4BDA-9117-6B2D76271924@starpower.net> Message-ID: <005a01c99b54$84050750$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure I agree with John in reading the 2001 minute as applying only to revokes on the same trick. The 2007 law, however, explicitly applies "when both sides have revoked on the same board" [L64B7], which appears to be far more than a mere incorporation of the minute into the subsequent round of law changes. > > +=+ I agree the minute only referred to revokes on the same trick (which was the only question up for discussion) and I agree that Law 64B7 was not an effort to incorporate the minute into the law. The third question is whether there is a consistency of principle in extension of the minute to apply to revokes at different tricks on the same board. In such an extension I do not see a change of principle. However, I hope to remember to obtain clarification of this in Sao Paulo. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 4 01:10:15 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 11:10:15 +1100 Subject: [blml] Green silk rooms [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Aral Vorkosigan: "Ges Vorrutyer? He was just a little villain. An old-fashioned craftsman, making crimes one-off. The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but the cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in that future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present - they are real." Green silk room meeting of ACBL Laws Commission, November 22 2008: [snip] Laws 12B1 and 12C1(e) - Definition of "Infraction" and "Irregularity" in adjudicating unauthorized information (UI) cases: relevance of transmittal of extraneous information versus acting on that information contrary to Law 16B1(a). The Chair, Chip Martel, will communicate with the Chair of the WBF Laws Committee to directly request its interpretation of this point. [snip] Green silk covered Chair of WBF LC, Ton Kooijman, personal opinion: Law 16 Normally the TD will not act when a player makes available unauthorized information (unauthorized information), for example by a hesitation or by an unexpected answer for his partner to a question from an opponent. Such cases are, generally speaking, not (automatically) infractions. The infraction occurs when the partner chooses from among logical alternatives one that could have been suggested by the hesitation or the unexpected answer. The unexpected answer itself becomes an infraction if it is not in accordance with the system the partnership has agreed upon. If the partner does not choose an action that could be suggested by the irregularity no infraction has occurred and no decision by the TD regarding the score is required. WBF Chief Director (and member of the Drafting Committee) Max Bavin: "Bridge is a thinking game." Definitions: Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player. Richard Hills: Before Ton's not-yet-official Law 16 advice becomes official, I suggest that the second paragraph be revised by replacing "irregularity" with "unauthorized information". The third sentence of Law 73D1 states: "Otherwise, unintentionally to vary the tempo or manner in which a call or play is made is not in itself an infraction." It seems to me, and apparently also to Max Bavin, that such a non- infraction of unintentional variation (with a demonstrable bridge reason of "bridge is a thinking game", e.g. no break in tempo when following suit with a singleton) is also not an irregularity. Eric Landau hypothesis: [snip] The second set of probabilities is the one in which the infraction did not occur because the offender bid 3H in the absence of UI after his partner hypothetically didn't break tempo. [snip] Chair of WBF Laws Committee, Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official opinion: Law 16B uses the words: "...may not choose...". This leads to the conclusion that when the TD decides to award a weighted adjusted score instead of the actual result he should not take into account any percentage of that result, unless he considers that contract also possible in a legal auction. Richard Hills: Eric's hypothesis of a second set of probabilities leads to illegal Reveley Rulings, described in Ton's Law 16B paragraph above. Law 12B1 requires the auction to be rolled back to the moment before the Law 16B infraction, not to the earlier moment before the non-infraction of a bog-standard "bridge is a thinking game" break in tempo. 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 Mar 4 06:46:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 16:46:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Quote policy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Tony Musgrove (24th December 2008): >>I only read Playboy for the articles. I only take BLML >>for the quotations..... http://www.jbryant.eu/pages/quotes.htm James Bryant: >QUOTE POLICY OF THE LOIS-BUJOLD LIST [snip] >Both of these groups were troubled by excessive quoting >and the list developed a quote policy:- > >Quote length should be minimised and quotes should be >paraphrased where possible. Richard Hills: Minimised, yes. Some blmlers occasionally carelessly copy and paste a whole series of posts, reposts and re-reposts into their reply, when their reply concerns only a single paragraph of the previous text. Paraphrased, no. Unlike the Lois McMaster Bujold list, which has as its prime directive the discussion of Bujold fiction, blml is about TFLB interpretation, so attempts at paraphrasing can reverse the meaning of the paraphrased poster by omitting a Lawful nuance. James Bryant: >Headers and sigs. should never be included unless they are >directly relevant to the reply. > >In general quotes should be no longer than the post they >accompany, Richard Hills: A good general rule, but in blml numerous exceptions test the rule. Excessive snipping can omit what the original poster considers an important point. James Bryant: >and, especially, a long post should not be quoted in full >in order to post a single line response. > >Quotes which have long lines should be edited to less than >60 characters >so that the resulting quotations, after line cutting, which >can occur >in a number of email programs, does not cause the final >quoted text >to look like this. > >Nested quotes should be edited to identify the "speakers", >rather than relying on multiple >>>>s. e.g: > >JB > Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb. >SC > Barbrhu, barbrhu, barbrhu, barbrhu, barbrhu. >RS > Brouhaha, brouhaha, brouhaha, brouhaha, brouhaha. Richard Hills: My personal opinion (open to modification from suggestions by other blmlers) is that identifying the speakers _and_ using multiple >>>>s is the best of both worlds, providing both names and also chronology. James Bryant: [snip] >Do remember that a little trouble for one person spares our >hundreds of list members the irritation of a post which is >much harder to make sense of. > >Some time ago I agreed to act as the list's "quote pixie" to >remind people, OFF-LIST, who quoted more than was really >necessary, in the interests of those list members with the >problems I mentioned. [snip] >James Bryant - the quote pixie Richard Hills: Um. Ideally blml should self-regulate, with no need for a formal appointment of a blml "quote pixie". For example, Grattan Endicott already obeys James Bryant's pixilated rules with the trivial exception of the two rules on deleting headers and directly identifying the previous speaker (which rarely can cause confusion as to exactly who Grattan is responding to). Indeed, self-regulation would seem to be self-enforcing, as many blmlers (myself included) may tend to delete without reading those posts which are overly long and confusing. 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 Mar 2 23:51:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:51:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002d01c99ad7$bae696d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Perhaps Grattan is best understood when contemplating his supererogation in the behalf of confused sinners, particularly any subscribing to this list. OK, Jeff? +=+ Pocket Oxford Dictionary: supererogation, n. Doing of more than duty requires (works of s., see Articles of Religion xiv). [Latin erogo = pay] * * * The Thirty-Nine Articles were adopted by the Church of England in 1563, defining its middle way between the beliefs and practices of the Roman Catholic Church and English Puritanism. XIV. Of Works of Supererogation. Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's commandments which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required: Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to do, say, We be unprofitable servants. * * * Matchpoint pairs Board 5 Dlr: North Vul: North-South The bidding has gone: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH --- 1C(1) Pass 1H(2) Pass 2H(3) Pass 3D(4) Pass 4C(5) Pass 4H(6) Pass Pass Pass (1) Alerted; Precision (2) Alerted; 5+ hearts, game forcing (3) Alerted; trump asking (4) Alerted; 6+ hearts, one honour (5) Alerted; asks about club control (6) Alerted; third-round club control You, West, hold: Q932 5 J9875 642 What opening lead do you make? What other opening leads 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 grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 2 16:52:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 15:52:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no><97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> <001501c99b27$67e2b3b0$37a81b10$@no> Message-ID: <002e01c99b4e$db02fbd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > Sure, the minute addressed only revoke from both sides > to the same trick. > > But the 2007 Law 64B7 has carried the principle from > this minute forward to apply also on revokes from > opposing sides to different tricks within the same board. > +=+ Well I think it does, and having said as much I have heard no murmur of dissent from among the remainder of the 'weaker and less wise' (sic). But in Sao Paulo I will try to remember to ask. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 3 17:20:20 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:20:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred><000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no><97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> <9F11B263-8379-4BDA-9117-6B2D76271924@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002401c99c1b$f60766a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > > I agree with John in reading the 2001 minute as applying only to > revokes on the same trick. The 2007 law, however, explicitly applies > "when both sides have revoked on the same board" [L64B7], which > appears to be far more than a mere incorporation of the minute into > the subsequent round of law changes. > +=+ I agree the minute only referred to revokes on the same trick (which was the only question up for discussion) and I agree that Law 64B7 was not an effort to incorporate the minute into the law. The third question is whether there is a consistency of principle in extension of the minute to apply to revokes at different tricks on the same board. In such an extension I do not see a change of principle. However, I hope to remember to obtain clarification of this in Sao Paulo. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Mon Mar 2 19:41:57 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:41:57 +0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan In-Reply-To: <46BAE690-C04B-49CA-B696-C2D4956CD24D@starpower.net> References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com> <49AAA819.2030108@talktalk.net> <46BAE690-C04B-49CA-B696-C2D4956CD24D@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49AC2875.6080105@talktalk.net> [Eric Landau] This past season there was a tie in the NFL. After the game, one of the NFL's top quarterbacks, a veteran of over a decade, revealed to the press that he didn't know the rules, was unaware that it was possible for a game to end in a tie, and would have played differently late in the "fifth quarter" had he known that the game was about to end in a tie. At the time, it appeared as though his failure to try to win the game might well cost his team a spot in the playoffs (they got lucky, and it didn't). Nobody suggested that the game was "flawed". [Nigel] I think that a game is flawed if *most* players are *unable* to understand its rules. For example, BLML demonstrates that many directors are unable to understand the laws of Bridge.. In contrast, the NFL tie-breaker rule is so clear and simple that even I can understand it; but the quarterback and I were previously unaware of it. On reflection, however, if most NFL players are equally ignorant of its rules, even if that is due to laziness rather than lack of ability, then I still think the game is flawed. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 5 17:21:29 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:21:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Green silk rooms [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001801c99daf$6d06f560$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:10 AM Subject: [blml] Green silk rooms [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Law 12B1 requires the auction to be rolled back to the > moment before the Law 16B infraction, not to the earlier > moment before the non-infraction of a bog-standard "bridge is a thinking game" break in tempo. > +=+ I agree with this. The quotation is by Max Bavin. The infraction is the use of the UI, not the action that produced the UI. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 5 17:27:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:27:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Quote policy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001901c99daf$6d49a3b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott>In general quotes should be no longer than the >> post they accompany, > +=+ Not necessarily so. From time to time there are statements on blml for which a response in a single word, or less, suffices. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Thu Mar 5 17:30:50 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:30:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <36C61093CD734B9486C8102F51136F45@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:51 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ Perhaps Grattan is best understood when contemplating his > supererogation in the behalf of confused sinners, particularly > any subscribing to this list. > OK, Jeff? +=+ > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > supererogation, n. Doing of more than duty requires (works of > s., see Articles of Religion xiv). [Latin erogo = pay] > > * * * > > The Thirty-Nine Articles were adopted by the Church of England > in 1563, defining its middle way between the beliefs and > practices of the Roman Catholic Church and English Puritanism. > > XIV. Of Works of Supererogation. > Voluntary works besides, over and above, God's commandments > which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught > without arrogancy and impiety. For by them men do declare that > they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to > do, but that they do more for His sake than of bounden duty is > required: Whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all > that are commanded to do, say, We be unprofitable servants. > > * * * > > Matchpoint pairs > Board 5 > Dlr: North > Vul: North-South > > The bidding has gone: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > --- 1C(1) Pass 1H(2) > Pass 2H(3) Pass 3D(4) > Pass 4C(5) Pass 4H(6) > Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Alerted; Precision > (2) Alerted; 5+ hearts, game forcing > (3) Alerted; trump asking > (4) Alerted; 6+ hearts, one honour > (5) Alerted; asks about club control > (6) Alerted; third-round club control > > You, West, hold: > > Q932 > 5 > J9875 > 642 > > What opening lead do you make? my systemic club. > What other opening leads do you consider making? curse of Scotland > > > 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 Mar 5 17:37:07 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 16:37:07 -0000 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan References: <9A18547DA16A4E52A4761CCEE633F03A@noelf36449040c> <49AA6A89.1030205@aol.com><49AAA819.2030108@talktalk.net><46BAE690-C04B-49CA-B696-C2D4956CD24D@starpower.net> <49AC2875.6080105@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <002401c99db0$a0c3a0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Understanding Grattan > On reflection, however, if most NFL players are equally > ignorant of its rules, even if that is due to laziness rather > than lack of ability, then I still think the game is flawed. > +=+ In duplicate bridge, however, the flaw is patched to a degree by Law 81C2. In one's early bridge life, in particular, every encounter with a wise tournament director who explains matters is a contribution to a future grasp of the essentials. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Thu Mar 5 18:39:45 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:39:45 -0800 Subject: [blml] Green silk rooms [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <001801c99daf$6d06f560$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <433D2C0FCE924B57BBC8F9E899B1CF64@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Grattan" < >> >> Law 12B1 requires the auction to be rolled back to the >> moment before the Law 16B infraction, not to the earlier >> moment before the non-infraction of a bog-standard "bridge > is a thinking game" break in tempo. >> > +=+ I agree with this. The quotation is by Max Bavin. The > infraction is the use of the UI, not the action that produced > the UI. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ And yet the ACBL LC continues to consider the contrary principle, which was espoused by the late Ralph Cohen. ACBL LC Detroit minutes March 2008: Adam will submit for the Las Vegas agenda an item to address concerns in UI rulings of whether to treat the hesitation (an irregularity) as part of the infraction when the partner acts on the hesitation. ACBL LC Las Vegas minutes July 2008: There was no consensus as to whether the irregularity referred to in Law 12C1(e)(i) is the use of the UI or some combination of the UI and the use of UI. The commission decided to send a request to the drafting committee for its interpretation on this point. Well, Grattan, did you get the request, and if so what was the reply? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 2 19:46:41 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 18:46:41 -0000 Subject: [blml] just to be sure References: <49AA9C83.5060708@aol.com> <000701c99ab4$a4a46dc0$eded4940$@no><000d01c99abf$0f9565d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99ac5$885b00f0$991102d0$@no><97E752A3DCB64E7791743B59C6DB002F@JOHN> <001501c99b27$67e2b3b0$37a81b10$@no> Message-ID: <1CFEEFAAA5FD4279AE2919F474F336AC@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sven Pran" To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [blml] just to be sure > On Behalf Of John (MadDog) Probst > >> >I was indeed. >> >> By the way guys, it's easy to sort out the mess if opposing sides revoke > on >> different tricks. The minute only applies to the same trick. In this case >> the cheating bastards get stuffed under equity Law not penalty law. John >> > >> > And it is my impression that the principle established in that minute > was >> > being generalized and carried forward in the current Law 64B7? > > Sure, the minute addressed only revoke from both sides to the same trick. > > But the 2007 Law 64B7 has carried the principle from this minute forward > to > apply also on revokes from opposing sides to different tricks within the > same board. Yeah, thanks Sven. This is so. I was more concerned that somebody was trying to suggest that cheating bastards (both sides) are non-offenders and not the cheating bastards they really are. We are now well armed for both sides revoking on the same board and the equity law is the one we need. That no penalty is prescribed dosn't mean to say they're not all of them still cheating bastards. It's the same for declarer revoking in dummy. He's a cheating bastard, but equity Law applies and there's no penalty. Have I finally made myself clear? :) John > > Regards Sven > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From JffEstrsn at aol.com Thu Mar 5 21:05:43 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:05:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: a modest proposal] Message-ID: <49B03097.40200@aol.com> I have sent this twice and it was always returned due to faulty address. Probably my computer inability caused this. Trying again now. JE -------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: a modest proposal Datum: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:13:38 +0100 Von: Jeff Easterson An: Bridge Laws Mailing List Has anyone else noticed that in the last week or two things have been very peaceful and friendly on blml? That encourages me to make a suggestion (at the risk of being awarded one of David's or Richard's prizes). I think many of us are TDs and occasionally direct in clubs. How about a thread recounting the most ridiculous problems? The title could be: Ridiculosities. An example: I was called to the table (provincial club)for a simple case. I made a ruling and read the pertinent rule from the laws. The player refused to accept the ruling because he saw that it was the 2007 laws. He demanded that I use a 2009 rule book. JE From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 5 21:38:35 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 15:38:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: <7k0u0q$o3fgdk@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> References: <7k0u0q$o3fgdk@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Mar 2, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > L12B refers to "expectation"; L12C1 refers to the "probabilities of a > number of potential results". No where do the laws define > "probability" or > "expectation" or say how they are to be determined. As near as I > can tell. > > There are three situations to consider > > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S, WHEN IN FACT THEY DEFENDED 3H > > Suppose L12 requires us to determine what would have happened had > the NOS > played in 2S, when in fact they defended against 3H. We need to assign > probabilities to events such as down one, making, one overtrick, > etc. As > far as I can tell, everyone defines the goal here as to be to > calculate > what would have happened had these players played the hand. (This > is an > important assumption; tell me if you disagree.) > > The best data is probably to look what other players of similar > ability > and methods did when they played the hand with spades as trumps. > One could > calculate the probability of these events assuming everyone played > their > cards at random. That would be an extremely inefficient method of > accomplishing the stated goal, and would not fit common practice. > But it > would be consistent with the laws. (The other method is to try to > look at > the cards and try to determine the likely courses of play.) In practice, we use the (parenthesized) "other method", subject to L12C1. We may, on occasion, want to look at other pairs' results, but only to judge "likely" or "probable", but we do give the NOS the chance to convince us that they would have played the hand better than anyone else. > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S WHEN IN FACT THEY PLAYED 3S > > What would have happened if the NOS played in 2S instead of 3S? I > can't > get an answer on this, but I am guessing that standard practice is to > assume, unless there is some reason otherwise, that they would have > taken > the same number of tricks in 2S as they took in 3S. Yes, although the NOS get the benefit of the doubt in determining whether "there is some reason otherwise". If declarer tells us that he went two down going all out to make, but would surely have taken the safety play for 2S had that been the contract, we will give it to him if it was at all "likely". > This is extremely efficient. It seems bizarre and absurd, because > of the > inefficiency, to look at what other pairs did when they played > spades as > trumps (or to calculate the likely course of play and completely > ignore > what actually happened). Again, we may, rarely, want to look at other pairs' results, if we are doubtful as to declarer's credibility (whether it was really "at all 'likely'" that he would have found that rare, obscure safety play he claimed he would have after the fact). > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 3S WHEN IN FACT THEY DID PLAY IN 3S > Now the issue is to decide what would have happened had the NOS > played in > 3S. When they did play in 3S. The obvious thing, the most efficient > thing, > the only only non-absurd thing IMO, is to use the table result. We > know > for certain what happens when they play in 3S. Correct. There is no hypothetical and nothing to adjust. We know the outcome at 3S with probability 1. If the NOS attempts to claim that the outcome in 3S would have been different absent the infraction, they essentially confess to taking a deliberate double shot, risking their right to redress per L12C1(b). > This apparently does not fit how some directors would like to > direct. They > would like to follow a much less efficient method. I am guessing > this is > selective -- only for the bidding, not the play, and only when the > director wants to punish the NOS more than the laws would otherwise > achieve. Correct me if I am wrong. There is no sensible way to > interpret > the laws to allow this selective application. Theoretical discussions on BLML aside, in real life I have not met any such directors. > Kaplan and the drafting committee expect that directors would > nonselectively use the less efficient method of looking at what > players of > like ability and methods would have done. From Kaplan's writings on the subject in The Bridge World, I very much doubt it. I can't speak for the drafting committee. > I am guessing this has never > been done, because seems to realize how impractical it is or even > what it > would be like if a director did this. Anyway, there is little > justification in the laws for being inefficient. And if using this > inefficient method is justified, why aren't we using it when the table > result is close to the situation to be estimated (when the NOS > played in > 3S and we want to determine what happened in 2S)? There is no > reasonable > way to interpret the laws with the selective shifting to inefficient > methods. "Inefficient" is a serious underbid. "Impractical" is the more accurate word. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Mar 5 22:04:15 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 21:04:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: a modest proposal] References: <49B03097.40200@aol.com> Message-ID: <000c01c99dd5$f3315060$2401a8c0@p41600> I think that is a magical idea. Clear the air, get some comaraderie, and a little fun along the way. Why ever not? Might actually learn a few things as well... lnb > How about a thread recounting the most ridiculous problems? The title > could be: Ridiculosities. > > An example: I was called to the table (provincial club)for a simple > case. I made a ruling and read the pertinent rule from the laws. The > player refused to accept the ruling because he saw that it was the 2007 > laws. He demanded that I use a 2009 rule book. JE From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 4 06:38:27 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2009 00:38:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:24:35 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 2, 2009, at 5:14 AM, Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ We must continue to be helpful if we can. Would it perhaps >> help if I suggested that there are two sets of probabilities to be >> assessed? The condition for the first is that the infraction does not >> occur. The condition for the second is that the infraction does >> occur. In each of these circumstances the Director is to take note >> of any outcome that has a measure of probability. From the range >> of answers to both explorations the Director is to select the one >> outcome that is least favourable for the offending side. > > I would suggest, along with Grattan, that there are two sets of > probabilites to be assessed, but I would put them in different > terms. The infraction (in our thread example) was the offender's > choice of 3H despite its having been suggested over LAs by the UI > arising from his partner's huddle. The first set of probabilities is > the one in which the infraction did not occur because the offender > hypothetically chose a non-suggested alternative other than 3H. The > second set of probabilities is the one in which the infraction did > not occur because the offender bid 3H in the absence of UI after his > partner hypothetically didn't break tempo. > > This leaves us where Grattan would like us to be, and allows us to > decide that the ACBL's addition of "had the irregulariy not occurred" > to L12C1(e)(ii) doesn't change its application. These probabilities would apply to any L12C1 correction, not just L12C1e(ii). So I doubt they are the same direction Grattan wanted to go in. I think there are problems with making changes in the bidding or play that pre-date the irregularity that triggers L12C1 and the adjusted score. For one, we usually handle problems created by the hesitation with different laws. But your suggestion has possibilities. Suppose: E N W S 1H P 2H P P(1) 2S 3H(2) 3S P P P (1) Hesitation (2) suggested by the hesitation, pass was an LA. It could be that had West not bid 3H, East would have. And perhaps if East bid 3H, North would have doubled. So this (with proper hands) gets you to 3HX, had the irregularity not occurred. Again this is for any of the L12C1 corrections. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 5 23:12:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:12:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Nancy Dressing (20th August 2004): Along these lines an interesting event occurred at one of our bridge tournaments. The director was not prepared for the number of teams that came to play on the last afternoon. While the search was on for more boards, a lady at the next table to me, fell to the floor. Fortunately at a close table on each side of her, there was a doctor and a nurse who applied CPR and mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and the ambulance was called. When the medics arrived, fortunately, she was revived (she was dead when she hit the floor) and she was rushed to the hospital, surviving the ordeal and living for several more years. Voila! the director's problem was solved. Her team had to withdraw and now there were enough boards for the game to go on without another incident! Absolutely true story... On with the game! Richard Hills: Many years ago, when I was a novice Tasmanian TD, I was called to the table for an unusual infraction; dummy had revealed her cards before the opening lead had been selected. I punted a ruling that this was an infraction with its own punishment, so the opening leader could have a good look at dummy before selecting her opening lead. As Nigel Guthrie noted, I was one of the many TDs who was unable to understand the Laws of Duplicate Bridge. Nowadays I would correctly rule, under Law 24, that the likely dummy had exposed 13 cards during the auction period. And, if either the likely dummy or the likely declarer disclosed during the clarification period that their partner had given significant MI, then I would give the likely defender last to pass the Law 21 option to change her call. If such a change of call happened, and it resulted in the likely defending side now becoming the actual declaring side, then the former likely dummy (now an actual defender) would have 13 penalty cards. What's the problem? Well, I suggest the problem is insufficient cross- referencing between Law 21 and Law 41. 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 Mar 5 23:25:24 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:25:24 +1100 Subject: [blml] Quote policy [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001901c99daf$6d49a3b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ Not necessarily so. From time to time there are statements on blml for which a response in a single word, or less, suffices. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ After Les Miserables went on sale, Victor Hugo sent a postcard to his publisher: ? Publisher's postcard to Victor Hugo: ! 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Tue Mar 3 09:17:28 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 09:17:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: References: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: 2009/3/2 Robert Frick : > L12B refers to "expectation"; L12C1 refers to the "probabilities of a > number of potential results". No where do the laws define "probability" or > "expectation" or say how they are to be determined. As near as I can tell. > > There are three situations to consider > > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S, WHEN IN FACT THEY DEFENDED 3H > > Suppose L12 requires us to determine what would have happened had the NOS > played in 2S, when in fact they defended against 3H. We need to assign > probabilities to events such as down one, making, one overtrick, etc. As > far as I can tell, everyone defines the goal here as to be to calculate > what would have happened had these players played the hand. (This is an > important assumption; tell me if you disagree.) > > The best data is probably to look what other players of similar ability > and methods did when they played the hand with spades as trumps. One could > calculate the probability of these events assuming everyone played their > cards at random. That would be an extremely inefficient method of > accomplishing the stated goal, and would not fit common practice. But it > would be consistent with the laws. (The other method is to try to look at > the cards and try to determine the likely courses of play.) Agreed > > > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S WHEN IN FACT THEY PLAYED 3S > > What would have happened if the NOS played in 2S instead of 3S? I can't > get an answer on this, but I am guessing that standard practice is to > assume, unless there is some reason otherwise, that they would have taken > the same number of tricks in 2S as they took in 3S. > > This is extremely efficient. It seems bizarre and absurd, because of the > inefficiency, to look at what other pairs did when they played spades as > trumps (or to calculate the likely course of play and completely ignore > what actually happened). Not obviously so. In 3S you might chose a different line than when playing in 2S, to try to make the contract. A line that you most probably wouldn't chose playing 2S. This might, of course, depend upon the form of scoring too. All this must be considered. > > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 3S WHEN IN FACT THEY DID PLAY IN 3S > Now the issue is to decide what would have happened had the NOS played in > 3S. When they did play in 3S. The obvious thing, the most efficient thing, > the only only non-absurd thing IMO, is to use the table result. We know > for certain what happens when they play in 3S. Agreed. > > This apparently does not fit how some directors would like to direct. They > would like to follow a much less efficient method. I am guessing this is > selective -- only for the bidding, not the play, and only when the > director wants to punish the NOS more than the laws would otherwise > achieve. Correct me if I am wrong. There is no sensible way to interpret > the laws to allow this selective application. > > Kaplan and the drafting committee expect that directors would > nonselectively use the less efficient method of looking at what players of > like ability and methods would have done. I am guessing this has never > been done, because seems to realize how impractical it is or even what it > would be like if a director did this. Anyway, there is little > justification in the laws for being inefficient. And if using this > inefficient method is justified, why aren't we using it when the table > result is close to the situation to be estimated (when the NOS played in > 3S and we want to determine what happened in 2S)? There is no reasonable > way to interpret the laws with the selective shifting to inefficient > methods. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 6 01:30:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 00:30:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com><00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP><2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com><003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <005a01c99df9$6f16ea00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) >> >> This leaves us where Grattan would like us to be, and allows us to >> decide that the ACBL's addition of "had the irregulariy not occurred" >> to L12C1(e)(ii) doesn't change its application. > > These probabilities would apply to any L12C1 correction, not just > L12C1e(ii). So I doubt they are the same direction Grattan wanted to go > in. > +=+ I approve of the doubt. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 6 02:13:12 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 01:13:12 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <005b01c99df9$6f59bf60$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:12 PM Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Nancy Dressing (20th August 2004): > > Richard Hills: > +=+ I cannot compete with such extravaganzas. However, for the record, some 57-60 years ago I did play one evening a local league match (team-of-4) in which I played at the table against Mr.and Mrs Beverley. He had come direct from his workplace and, on my left, he had fish and chips* on the table with a bottle of sauce, and through the first twelve boards of the match he consumed his meal with evident enjoyment. No comment passed and, to Mr. B's great credit, no frying oil was transferred to the cards. Nor in that half-match did he ever lead one of his fries. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ .......................................................................................... *fries. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 6 02:17:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 01:17:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 References: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred><005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred><2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com><18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP><2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com><003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > 2009/3/2 Robert Frick : L12B refers to "expectation"; L12C1 refers to the "probabilities of a number of potential results". No where do the laws define "probability" or "expectation" or say how they are to be determined. As near as I can tell. >> +=+ The Director must form an opinion as to what results may potentially occur. He is then to judge in each case what is the probability of its occurring. He is entitled to a little help from his friends. In 12C1(d) he is given succour if he can conceive of too many potential outcomes. I have seen various guidance as to a level at which the mind is too stretched. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 6 02:24:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 12:24:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002401c99db0$a0c3a0f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ In duplicate bridge, however, the flaw is patched to a degree by Law 81C2. In one's early bridge life, in particular, every encounter with a wise tournament director who explains matters is a contribution to a future grasp of the essentials. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Ed Reppert (May 2006): >>>I don't think either Richard or I has expressed the >>>opinion that PPs ought not to be "rare" - rather, we are >>>(or at least I am) saying that they ought to be less rare >>>than currently. I suppose the same players who consider >>>PPs "offensive and insulting" consider speeding tickets in >>>the same light. Be that as it may, perhaps the solution is >>>*education* rather than a completely different approach to >>>writing the rules of the game. Richard Hills (May 2006):: >>I fully agree with the solution of *education* of >>inexperienced players. This is why, in my opinion, the best >>and most effective form of procedural penalty that a TD can >>issue is also the mildest form of procedural penalty - a >>warning. >> >>"Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is >>old, he will not depart from it." >>(Proverbs 22:6) Anne Jones (May 2006): >Reminds me of the hand that I played in 1978 with a wise old >bird in a cut in rubber. I led my singleton and he switched. >What a pratt, I had my trump out ready to ruff !!!! We lost >the rubber and he moved on. > >He explained to me in the bar after why he had done that, at >considerable cost to himself I hasten to add. > >Probably the reason I am now a TD and the chair of Wales L&EC. > >Anne 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 Fri Mar 6 04:08:06 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:08:06 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: References: <7k0u0q$o3fgdk@smtp02.mrf.mail.rcn.net> Message-ID: On Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:38:35 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > On Mar 2, 2009, at 10:22 AM, Robert Frick wrote: >> IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 3S WHEN IN FACT THEY DID PLAY IN 3S >> Now the issue is to decide what would have happened had the NOS >> played in >> 3S. When they did play in 3S. The obvious thing, the most efficient >> thing, >> the only only non-absurd thing IMO, is to use the table result. We >> know >> for certain what happens when they play in 3S. > > Correct. There is no hypothetical and nothing to adjust. We know > the outcome at 3S with probability 1. If the NOS attempts to claim > that the outcome in 3S would have been different absent the > infraction, they essentially confess to taking a deliberate double > shot, risking their right to redress per L12C1(b). And even then, the NOS are talking about what would have happened had the infraction not occurred -- they are not saying they would have done something different if the infraction had occurred. > >> This apparently does not fit how some directors would like to >> direct. They >> would like to follow a much less efficient method. I am guessing >> this is >> selective -- only for the bidding, not the play, and only when the >> director wants to punish the NOS more than the laws would otherwise >> achieve. Correct me if I am wrong. There is no sensible way to >> interpret >> the laws to allow this selective application. > > Theoretical discussions on BLML aside, in real life I have not met > any such directors. Grattan quoted an anonymous director on this. (The director wanted to be able to find worse results had the irregularity occurred than the actual result with the irregularity -- such as the opps passing or doubling 3H when in fact they bid 3S.) > >> Kaplan and the drafting committee expect that directors would >> nonselectively use the less efficient method of looking at what >> players of >> like ability and methods would have done. > > From Kaplan's writings on the subject in The Bridge World, I very > much doubt it. I can't speak for the drafting committee. It was claimed that Kaplan supported this position. I do not know the answer to this. Grattan said that probabilities would be used in this way (what would other players of like ability do, rather than the actual table result). He also said he was speaking for the drafting subcommittee and historically. If I have put these together incorrectly, I would like to know. > >> I am guessing this has never >> been done, because seems to realize how impractical it is or even >> what it >> would be like if a director did this. Anyway, there is little >> justification in the laws for being inefficient. And if using this >> inefficient method is justified, why aren't we using it when the table >> result is close to the situation to be estimated (when the NOS >> played in >> 3S and we want to determine what happened in 2S)? There is no >> reasonable >> way to interpret the laws with the selective shifting to inefficient >> methods. > > "Inefficient" is a serious underbid. "Impractical" is the more > accurate word. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 6 05:37:34 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:37:34 +1100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hilaire Belloc, Cautionary Tales for Children: Now just imagine how it feels When first your toes and then your heels, And then by gradual degrees, Your shins and ankles, calves and knees, Are slowly eaten, bit by bit. No wonder Jim detested it! Robert Frick just imagined: >>.....We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. Eric Landau just imagined: >Correct. There is no hypothetical and nothing to adjust. We know >the outcome at 3S with probability 1..... Richard Hills quibbles: Are we not discussing the Marvin French hypothetical? In that case: Table 1 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass 2S Pass(1) Pass 3H (2) 3S Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo, demonstrably suggesting 3H, not an infraction. (2) The other logical alternative is Pass so a Law 16B infraction. Table 2 WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass 2S Pass(1) Pass Pass(2) 3S (3) (1) Break in tempo, demonstrably suggesting 3H, not an infraction. (2) Law 16B legal. (3) Law 39B illegal, cancelled with no further rectification. So the question for adjusting the score for the non-offending side is whether the play and defence in the legal contract of 2S would differ from the play and defence in the illegal contract of 3S. Perhaps a passive opening lead is indicated versus 3S while an aggressive opening lead is indicated versus 2S. Perhaps at Table 1 North chooses to infract Law 16B twice, using UI from South's break in tempo to select from amongst logical alternative defensive lines, whilst at Table 2 North on defence follows the Law 73C advice to: ".....carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized information." No point in saying, "what's the problem", since the lazy route of taking the play at the table as the basis for the adjusted score caused an ACBL Appeals Committee to make an unLawful ruling about three-and-a-half decades ago. To the best of my recollection, this unLawful ruling was written up by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge World of circa 1973 vintage. A blmler with a better organised library than mine may be able to locate the exact and rather (in) famous deal. 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 Mar 6 07:02:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:02:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Understanding Grattan [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <36C61093CD734B9486C8102F51136F45@JOHN> Message-ID: Rodgers and Hammerstein, Oklahoma! (1943): Precision's up to date in Kansas City They gone about as fer as they can go They went an' built some asking bids seven stories high About as high as an auction' orta grow. >>Matchpoint pairs >>Board 5 >>Dlr: North >>Vul: North-South >> >>The bidding has gone: >> >>WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH >>--- 1C (1) Pass 1H (2) >>Pass 2H (3) Pass 3D (4) >>Pass 4C (5) Pass 4H (6) >>Pass Pass(7) Pass >> >>(1) Alerted; Precision >>(2) Alerted; 5+ hearts, game forcing >>(3) Alerted; trump asking >>(4) Alerted; 6+ hearts, one honour >>(5) Alerted; asks about club control >>(6) Alerted; third-round club control >>(7) 100% forcing pass, as can easily be deduced from the auction >> >>You, West, hold: >> >>Q932 >>5 >>J9875 >>642 >> >>What opening lead do you make? John (MadDog) Probst: >my systemic club. Richard Hills: Yes, in my opinion at matchpoint pairs a club lead is automatic on this auction. Why get an equal bottom for -680? The excessively descriptive auction gives us a chance that other pairs might not take, establishing partner's marked club winner(s) for an equal top of -650. But..... Kansas City NABC 2001 Appeals Casebook, Case 12 Open Pairs First Qualifying Session Brd: 5 Allen Rew Dlr: North K85 Vul: N/S QJ98 A2 AQ85 Paul O'Hara Roisin O'Hara Q932 AJT7 5 K J9875 K43 642 JT973 Thomas Mori 64 AT76432 QT6 K The Facts: 4H made six, +680 for N/S. The opening lead was a club. The Director was called at the conclusion of play. North gave the correct explanation of the 4H bid according to N/S's partnership agreement: The first step showed no control, the second step showed third-round control, etc. South said that when he bid 4H he thought he was showing second-round club control and only later realized that his partner's explanation was correct. The Director ruled that there had been a mistaken bid ([1997] Law 75D2 [now the 2007 Law 75C]) and allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: E/W appealed the Director's ruling. E/W thought that N/S had an obligation to know their conventions. Since South had forgotten the correct response to the asking bid, E/W believed they were damaged in their selection of the opening lead: a spade might have been led had they been informed that South had misbid. N/S agreed with the Director's ruling and presented system notes which clearly confirmed that the 4H bid showed third-round club control. The Committee Decision: The Committee reviewed [1997] Laws 40A [now the 2007 Law 40A3] and [1997 Law] 75D2 [now the 2007 Law 75C] and could find no basis for an adjustment. The Committee recalled Edgar Kaplan's statement that if the laws permit an intentional deviation from partnership agreements, then certainly an unintentional one is not cause for an adjustment. In this case it was clear that there had been a misbid rather than a misexplanation. Therefore, there was no infraction. The Committee was informed that the Screening Director had reviewed [1997] Laws 75D2 [now the 2007 Law 75C] and [1997 Law] 40A [now the 2007 Law 40A3] with E/W. Since no issue was presented to the Committee beyond the Director's correct review of the laws, the Committee allowed the table result to stand and issued both E/W players an AWMW. DIC of Event: Henry Cukoff Committee: Michael Huston (chair), Mark Bartusek, Simon Kantor, Ellen Siebert, Adam Wildavsky Grattan Endicott (casebook panellist): "Oh, yes indeed. And not only Kaplan. I quote from the minutes of the WBF Laws Committee, Albuquerque, September 27, 1994: 'It was pointed out that one cannot devise a law which says deliberate infringement of partnership agreement is acceptable but accidental infringement is punishable.' There is no thought that the right to violate one's announced agreements, so long as there is no concealed understanding about it with partner, should be taken away. The meeting noted that players can be disciplined if their forgetting of agreements and consequent convention disruptions interfere with the orderly progress of the game and/or indicate the player's inattention to the game, or interfere with the enjoyment of the game. The action (then) taken can include prohibition of the use of the convention, etc.'" Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From bbickford at charter.net Thu Mar 5 13:48:09 2009 From: bbickford at charter.net (Bill Bickford) Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 07:48:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Has the list died Message-ID: Returned as undeliverable 3/5/09 ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Bickford To: Bridge Laws Forum Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 07:25 Subject: Has the list died The last message I received was approximately 48 hours ago What's happening? Cheers......................../Bill Bickford -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090305/987628f4/attachment-0001.htm From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 2 16:43:51 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:43:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) Message-ID: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> This one was told me, I was not there when it happened. Declarer is in a heart contract, and he has 3 small spades on the table for 2 in his hand. They are played once, but dummy forgets to turn over a spade. So a bit later, declarer notices two spade losers and claims conceding two spade tricks. Only then does he discover that there should have been only one spade on the table. Can he get his trick back? (suppose the TD is called before the next hand begins). Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 6 09:55:39 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 09:55:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: ridiculosities] In-Reply-To: <49B03097.40200@aol.com> References: <49B03097.40200@aol.com> Message-ID: <49B0E50B.2000809@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > I have sent this twice and it was always returned due to faulty address. > Probably my computer inability caused this. Trying again now. JE > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Betreff: a modest proposal > Datum: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 00:13:38 +0100 > Von: Jeff Easterson > An: Bridge Laws Mailing List > > Has anyone else noticed that in the last week or two things have been > very peaceful and friendly on blml? That encourages me to make a > suggestion (at the risk of being awarded one of David's or Richard's > prizes). I think many of us are TDs and occasionally direct in clubs. > How about a thread recounting the most ridiculous problems? The title > could be: Ridiculosities. > > An example: I was called to the table (provincial club)for a simple > case. I made a ruling and read the pertinent rule from the laws. The > player refused to accept the ruling because he saw that it was the 2007 > laws. He demanded that I use a 2009 rule book. JE > > I'm glad to participate. A male LOL had the C9 as a penalty card. I told all I had to tell. Declarer decided "card stands". When the guy came to hand, he played the D4. This means two penalty cards IIRC, and I told declarer he might choose. He chose the D4. The defender turned to me : "I don't have to play the C9 now, you mean ?" I nodded. Then he played a Heart. This problem is more than just ridiculous. TFLB explicitly covers the case when a player has one penalty card and fails to play it, but not the case of two. Combining L51 and L52 isn't too difficult, but more cross-references could be necessary. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 6 10:19:29 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:19:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?A_nice_one_=28yes_it=27s_a_claim=29?= In-Reply-To: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> First of all dummy had 2 spades and declarer had 3, otherwise no sense ... Then Law 71 A2: "A concession must stand, once made, except that within the Correction Period established under Law 79C the Director shall cancel a concession: 1. [...] 2. 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." So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff one spade, declarer might get his trick back. A judgemental decision of the TD. I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. Peter From: Herman De Wael > Declarer is in a heart contract, and he has 3 small spades on the > table for 2 in his hand. They are played once, but dummy forgets to > turn over a spade. > So a bit later, declarer notices two spade losers and claims conceding > two spade tricks. > Only then does he discover that there should have been only one spade > on the table. > Can he get his trick back? (suppose the TD is called before the next > hand begins). From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 6 11:17:22 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:17:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: References: <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c99e44$bd5e5310$381af930$@no> On Behalf Of Harald Skj?ran .............. > > IF THE NOS PLAYED IN 2S WHEN IN FACT THEY PLAYED 3S > > > > What would have happened if the NOS played in 2S instead of 3S? I can't > > get an answer on this, but I am guessing that standard practice is to > > assume, unless there is some reason otherwise, that they would have taken > > the same number of tricks in 2S as they took in 3S. > > > > This is extremely efficient. It seems bizarre and absurd, because of the > > inefficiency, to look at what other pairs did when they played spades as > > trumps (or to calculate the likely course of play and completely ignore > > what actually happened). > > Not obviously so. > In 3S you might chose a different line than when playing in 2S, to try > to make the contract. A line that you most probably wouldn't chose > playing 2S. This might, of course, depend upon the form of scoring > too. All this must be considered. One of the questions (which I actually failed) when first qualifying to become director at district level back in 1980 was basically: IMP scoring, a pair had used UI and reached a grand slam instead of a small slam. Because of a fortunate finesse they made 13 tricks. Ruling? The correct ruling is of course small slam just made, they shall not keep even the possible one imp gain from the overtrick when safe play for 12 tricks is the only sane play in the small slam. (My error was to let them keep the overtrick they had indeed made.) Regards Sven From JffEstrsn at aol.com Fri Mar 6 13:33:10 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 13:33:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities Message-ID: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> Recently I was called to a table as TD. Simple case: Declarer had won the last trick in the dummy and while he was considering how to proceed his RHO played the ace of hearts. Easy ruling, major penalty card. Declarer choose to play from dummy and his LHO won the trick. I explained his possible actions and he chose to forbid a heart lead. I told RHO he could replace the ace in his hand but he refused! (No need to go into possible disciplinary considerations; the organiser does not want any player severely disciplined.) I thus allowed him to leave the ace exposed, seemed harmless. Some time later I thought about the case. What if declarer had led again from the dummy and LHO had again won the trick? According to the rules he would no longer be forbidden from leading hearts. But, of course, the laws do not consider the case in which a player refuses to replace a penalty card in his hand so in this case his partner would still have the ace of hearts exposed. I don't think I could have given the declarer the option of again forbidding hearts bit I surely would have liked to. JE From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 6 14:01:21 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:01:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities In-Reply-To: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> Message-ID: <001301c99e5b$a5f26ab0$f1d74010$@no> On Behalf Of Jeff Easterson > Sent: 6. mars 2009 13:33 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities > > Recently I was called to a table as TD. Simple case: Declarer had won > the last trick in the dummy and while he was considering how to proceed > his RHO played the ace of hearts. Easy ruling, major penalty card. > Declarer choose to play from dummy and his LHO won the trick. I > explained his possible actions and he chose to forbid a heart lead. I > told RHO he could replace the ace in his hand but he refused! (No need > to go into possible disciplinary considerations; the organiser does not > want any player severely disciplined.) I thus allowed him to leave the > ace exposed, seemed harmless. > Some time later I thought about the case. What if declarer had led again > from the dummy and LHO had again won the trick? According to the rules > he would no longer be forbidden from leading hearts. But, of course, > the laws do not consider the case in which a player refuses to replace a > penalty card in his hand so in this case his partner would still have > the ace of hearts exposed. I don't think I could have given the > declarer the option of again forbidding hearts bit I surely would have > liked to. JE GREAT! Technically RHO has (illegally) exposed his AH again by leaving it faced on the table instead of restoring it to his hand. So when he refuses to restore it to his hand it automatically becomes a major penalty card for the second time! Regards Sven From dalburn at btopenworld.com Fri Mar 6 09:54:30 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:54:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Has the list died In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601c99e39$29ebe620$7dc3b260$@com> >The last message I received was approximately 48 hours ago What's happening? Not very much, obviously. This may or may not be a good thing. David Burn London, England -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090306/051ef1c4/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 6 14:48:52 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:48:52 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) In-Reply-To: References: <694eadd40902231509o7d4b47c6i754b7331e6a2fc6b@mail.gmail.com> <00b901c99628$1f639d10$0302a8c0@Mildred> <005901c996a1$6293e350$0302a8c0@Mildred> <2b1e598b0902241133x2d7470fdta80679b8f0b3c6b1@mail.gmail.com> <18441799C980455499CCF8C32A2BC6A1@MARVLAPTOP> <2b1e598b0903012336k1c52c6dfsd4e73c9b9ba48941@mail.gmail.com> <003d01c99b1f$a9779e10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <4C1FA34F-92CB-47C8-9BDE-935C269727A4@starpower.net> On Mar 4, 2009, at 12:38 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 10:24:35 -0500, Eric Landau > wrote: > >> I would suggest, along with Grattan, that there are two sets of >> probabilites to be assessed, but I would put them in different >> terms. The infraction (in our thread example) was the offender's >> choice of 3H despite its having been suggested over LAs by the UI >> arising from his partner's huddle. The first set of probabilities is >> the one in which the infraction did not occur because the offender >> hypothetically chose a non-suggested alternative other than 3H. The >> second set of probabilities is the one in which the infraction did >> not occur because the offender bid 3H in the absence of UI after his >> partner hypothetically didn't break tempo. >> >> This leaves us where Grattan would like us to be, and allows us to >> decide that the ACBL's addition of "had the irregulariy not occurred" >> to L12C1(e)(ii) doesn't change its application. > > These probabilities would apply to any L12C1 correction, not just > L12C1e(ii). I don't see the generalization here. Grattan's "two sets of probabilities" manifest in the specific case of a UI infraction only because the existence of the infraction (the violation of L16B) is dependent on the existence of some prior "irregular" action which is not in itself an infraction (the tempo break). If either of those don't happen, there is no infraction. This is not generally the case when L12C1 is applied to other types of infractions. > So I doubt they are the same direction Grattan wanted to go in. > > I think there are problems with making changes in the bidding or > play that > pre-date the irregularity that triggers L12C1 and the adjusted > score. For > one, we usually handle problems created by the hesitation with > different > laws. > > But your suggestion has possibilities. Suppose: > > E N W S > 1H P 2H P > P(1) 2S 3H(2) 3S > P P P > > (1) Hesitation > (2) suggested by the hesitation, pass was an LA. > > It could be that had West not bid 3H, East would have. And perhaps > if East > bid 3H, North would have doubled. So this (with proper hands) gets > you to > 3HX, had the irregularity not occurred. Again this is for any of > the L12C1 > corrections. True but irrelevant. The "second set of probabilities" arise from the context in which West bids 3H absent East's hesitation, thus commits no infraction. We do not need this interpretation to consider cases in which East might be presumed to have passed but E-W might have subsequently reached 3H anyhow. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 6 15:01:08 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:01:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities In-Reply-To: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> Message-ID: <49B12CA4.5050908@ulb.ac.be> Jeff Easterson a ?crit : > Recently I was called to a table as TD. Simple case: Declarer had won > the last trick in the dummy and while he was considering how to proceed > his RHO played the ace of hearts. Easy ruling, major penalty card. > Declarer choose to play from dummy and his LHO won the trick. I > explained his possible actions and he chose to forbid a heart lead. I > told RHO he could replace the ace in his hand but he refused! (No need > to go into possible disciplinary considerations; the organiser does not > want any player severely disciplined.) I thus allowed him to leave the > ace exposed, seemed harmless. > Some time later I thought about the case. What if declarer had led again > from the dummy and LHO had again won the trick? According to the rules > he would no longer be forbidden from leading hearts. But, of course, > the laws do not consider the case in which a player refuses to replace a > penalty card in his hand so in this case his partner would still have > the ace of hearts exposed. I don't think I could have given the > declarer the option of again forbidding hearts bit I surely would have > liked to. JE > AG : I think you could (and should). When you rule the HA is to be replaced in the player's hand, letting it on the table is voluntarily exposure, whence the HA once again becomes a MPC. Nowhere is it written that voluntary exposure needs a gesture. Else, it would be too easy to let the card lie as a reminder to partner. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 6 15:22:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:22:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> On Mar 5, 2009, at 11:37 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Hilaire Belloc, Cautionary Tales for Children: > > Now just imagine how it feels > When first your toes and then your heels, > And then by gradual degrees, > Your shins and ankles, calves and knees, > Are slowly eaten, bit by bit. > No wonder Jim detested it! > > Robert Frick just imagined: > >>> .....We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. > > Eric Landau just imagined: > >> Correct. There is no hypothetical and nothing to adjust. We know >> the outcome at 3S with probability 1..... > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > Are we not discussing the Marvin French hypothetical? No. > In that case: > > Table 1 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Pass 2S Pass(1) > Pass 3H (2) 3S Pass > Pass Pass > > (1) Break in tempo, demonstrably suggesting 3H, not an infraction. > (2) The other logical alternative is Pass so a Law 16B infraction. > > Table 2 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Pass 2S Pass(1) > Pass Pass(2) 3S (3) > > (1) Break in tempo, demonstrably suggesting 3H, not an infraction. > (2) Law 16B legal. > (3) Law 39B illegal, cancelled with no further rectification. > > So the question for adjusting the score for the non-offending side > is whether the play and defence in the legal contract of 2S would > differ from the play and defence in the illegal contract of 3S. > > Perhaps a passive opening lead is indicated versus 3S while an > aggressive opening lead is indicated versus 2S. Perhaps at Table 1 > North chooses to infract Law 16B twice, using UI from South's break > in tempo to select from amongst logical alternative defensive lines, > whilst at Table 2 North on defence follows the Law 73C advice to: > > ".....carefully avoid taking any advantage from that unauthorized > information." > > No point in saying, "what's the problem", since the lazy route of > taking the play at the table as the basis for the adjusted score > caused an ACBL Appeals Committee to make an unLawful ruling about > three-and-a-half decades ago. To the best of my recollection, > this unLawful ruling was written up by Edgar Kaplan in a Bridge > World of circa 1973 vintage. A blmler with a better organised > library than mine may be able to locate the exact and rather (in) > famous deal. Bob distinguished three cases. Marv's and Richard's examples are relevant to his second case, which he labeled, "If the NOS [hypothetically] played in 2S when in fact they played 3S." The quoted exchange was about his third case, "If the NOS [hypothetically] played in 3S when in fact they did play in 3S." That last probably should be explicitly qualified as from the same side of the table, although that should be understood (we recognize that for ruling purposes, 3S-E and 3S-W are *not* the same contract). Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 6 21:46:17 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:46:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott> >>>> .....We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. >> +=+ So we do, but it is not necessarily the case that the same considerations will apply for a declarer in 2S as for a declarer in 3S. In some circumstances the play may be different. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 6 23:19:41 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:19:41 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:46:17 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Sir, I have found you an argument; > but I am not obliged to find you an > understanding." > (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>>>> .....We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. >>> > +=+ So we do, but it is not necessarily the case that the same > considerations will apply for a declarer in 2S as for a declarer > in 3S. In some circumstances the play may be different. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Can we agree that (1) we are trying to calculate what would have happened had these players played in 2S, and (2) we try to use all available information in the optimal way? And if that doesn't seem controversial, it means that we only use "what players of like ability would have done" only when that is the best evidence available. When we have better evidence, we use the better evidence? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 7 00:34:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 23:34:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net><002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:19 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:46:17 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Sir, I have found you an argument; >> but I am not obliged to find you an >> understanding." >> (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') >> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>> >>>>>> .....We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. >>>> >> +=+ So we do, but it is not necessarily the case that the same >> considerations will apply for a declarer in 2S as for a declarer >> in 3S. In some circumstances the play may be different. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Can we agree that (1) we are trying to calculate what would > have happened had these players played in 2S, and (2) we > try to use all available information in the optimal way? > > And if that doesn't seem controversial, it means that we only > use "what players of like ability would have done" only when > that is the best evidence available. When we have better > evidence, we use the better evidence? > +=+ The consultation of players occurs when considering whether to disallow a player's action. It may extend to a determination of what logical alternatives the Director will consider as replacements for a disallowed action. Consulting with other directors if possible, the Director must judge what potential lines of play should then be taken into account. In your 3S/2S example he will only follow the courseof the play in 3S if he is satisfied the play would not differ in 2S (which is the point I am making). Otherwise he examines the potential lines of play and forms his opinion - which may allow that more than one possibility may ensue. He could well decide to consult a competent player if he found analysis of potential play difficult. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Sat Mar 7 00:55:00 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:55:00 -0800 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <6AC05EB9BCE5411CBB1BF42822957530@MARVLAPTOP> > +=+ So we do, but it is not necessarily the case that the same > considerations will apply for a declarer in 2S as for a declarer > in 3S. In some circumstances the play may be different. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I haven't been following this thread lately, did someone take my example of a 2S adjustment too literally? When I said the score is adjusted back to 2S making plus 110, *of course* the level of contract must be taken into account when determining the adjustment. Geez Louise. On the other hand, I see no reason to change the actual play of the cards when no such effect is pertinent (and emotions don't count). To remove serious errors of the non-offenders when assigning a score to the offenders is to *penalize* the offenders for something that had nothing to do with the infraction. It violates the highly-touted principle of "rectification" and ignores historical precedent. Just one more example of how the game is being changed in ways that make it unrecognizable, so super-sophisticated that the typical TD has no chance to understand and apply its rules. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 7 01:04:59 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:04:59 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: <000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:34:03 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Sir, I have found you an argument; > but I am not obliged to find you an > understanding." > (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:19 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > > >> On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 15:46:17 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "Sir, I have found you an argument; >>> but I am not obliged to find you an >>> understanding." >>> (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') >>> '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>>> >>>>>>> .....We know for certain what happens when they play in 3S. >>>>> >>> +=+ So we do, but it is not necessarily the case that the same >>> considerations will apply for a declarer in 2S as for a declarer >>> in 3S. In some circumstances the play may be different. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Can we agree that (1) we are trying to calculate what would >> have happened had these players played in 2S, and (2) we >> try to use all available information in the optimal way? >> >> And if that doesn't seem controversial, it means that we only >> use "what players of like ability would have done" only when >> that is the best evidence available. When we have better >> evidence, we use the better evidence? >> > +=+ The consultation of players occurs when considering > whether to disallow a player's action. It may extend to a > determination of what logical alternatives the Director will > consider as replacements for a disallowed action. > Consulting with other directors if possible, the Director > must judge what potential lines of play should then be taken > into account. In your 3S/2S example he will only follow the > courseof the play in 3S if he is satisfied the play would not > differ in 2S (which is the point I am making). Otherwise he > examines the potential lines of play and forms his opinion - > which may allow that more than one possibility may ensue. > He could well decide to consult a competent player if he > found analysis of potential play difficult. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ So, if the goal is to determine what would happen in 2S, and the NOS played in 3S, the director tries to determine if there would have been any difference between the two. If the goal is to determine what would have in 3S played by West and 3S was played by East, the director tries to determine if identity of the declarer was diferent. But if the goal is to determine what would have happened in 3S by West, and 3S was played by West, the director is done, because there is no difference. Right? Do you agree? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 7 09:52:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:52:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net><002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred><000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001201c99f02$0bf6e290$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 12:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > > So, if the goal is to determine what would happen in 2S, and the NOS > played in 3S, the director tries to determine if there would have been any > difference between the two. If the goal is to determine what would have in > 3S played by West and 3S was played by East, the director tries to > determine if identity of the declarer was diferent. > > But if the goal is to determine what would have happened in 3S by West, > and 3S was played by West, the director is done, because there is no > difference. Right? Do you agree? > +=+ Caveat: the presumed auction to arrive in 3S, by E or W, might perhaps add occasionally to declarer's information. The director should bear this in mind. When all is done the director is in charge and makes the decisions. He may find reasons to deviate from the principles Robert is so keen to impose upon him - the responsibility is his. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 7 10:26:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 09:26:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> Message-ID: <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001301c99f1e$10c98f90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott +=+ There was, of course, the instance many years ago at the Liverpool Bridge Club. Ralph Churney, player standing in as Director at a club evening pairs, was called to a table where four 'middle-aged' ladies were seated. At the end of the auction presumed declarer opined a cup of tea would be nice and faced an opening lead. Her LHO had agreed about the tea and faced a 'dummy'. The next player then enquired as to the contract. The fourth player was confused. > ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 7 15:49:35 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 09:49:35 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: <001201c99f02$0bf6e290$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001201c99f02$0bf6e290$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:52:25 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Sir, I have found you an argument; > but I am not obliged to find you an > understanding." > (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 12:04 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > > >> >> So, if the goal is to determine what would happen in 2S, and the NOS >> played in 3S, the director tries to determine if there would have been >> any >> difference between the two. If the goal is to determine what would have >> in >> 3S played by West and 3S was played by East, the director tries to >> determine if identity of the declarer was diferent. >> >> But if the goal is to determine what would have happened in 3S by West, >> and 3S was played by West, the director is done, because there is no >> difference. Right? Do you agree? >> > +=+ Caveat: the presumed auction to arrive in 3S, by E or W, might > perhaps add occasionally to declarer's information. The director should > bear this in mind. When all is done the director is in charge and makes > the decisions. He may find reasons to deviate from the principles Robert > is so keen to impose upon him - the responsibility is his. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Very keen. But you are not understanding the principle. To put it one way, I am arguing that "If everything is the same, then the result is the same." I fully agree with "If something was different, then the result might have been different." Suppose the auction is 1S P 2S 3H 3S P P P as we want to know what would have happened to these players, at this table, had the auction been different: 1S P 2S P 3S P P P The director might assign the same result. Or maybe the director will want to assign a different result. I have no keenness for this. But suppose again the same auction: S W N E 1S P 2S 3H 3S P P P and we want to know what would have happened to these players, at this table, had East bid 3H. I am very keen to say that we use the table result and we should use the table result. Suppose declarer went down 1. We do not say that declarer might have made 3 if East had bid 3H. Even if there is a reasonable play for 3S and even if players of like ability and method are making 3. Because we are trying to discover what this player would have done, and this player went down in 3S. And for exactly the same reasons, we do not say that perhaps this player, sitting South, would have doubled if East had bid 3H. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 8 11:48:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:48:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net><002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred><000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred><001201c99f02$0bf6e290$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000d01c99fdb$5c443d40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:49 PM Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > But you are not understanding the principle. < +=+ The principle is that the laws do not put the Director into a straitjacket. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 8 22:31:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 16:31:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 In-Reply-To: <000d01c99fdb$5c443d40$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <3D337A37-2954-48FA-964B-EDA70D65FCA5@starpower.net> <002a01c99e9c$9aa60c70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000901c99eb4$29c10fb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001201c99f02$0bf6e290$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000d01c99fdb$5c443d40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:48:01 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 2:49 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] L12C1(e) part 1 > > >> But you are not understanding the principle. > < > +=+ The principle is that the laws do not put the Director > into a straitjacket. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I have argued that when the situation is to determine an outcome for playing in 2S, when in fact the contract was 3H, that the director uses the available information in an optimal way to produce as accurate an answer as possible. I would call this a responsibility. You can call it a straightjacket if you want, but I think the director should want to be optimal. But you are right. The laws to not say how the probabilities are calculated. Unless there is some other pcinciple involved, the director could use what whacko inefficient method he wanted and still be following the law. (Of course, the director has no chance of being supported by the AC and his job is probably jeopardized.) When the goal is to determine what would have happened in 2S, when in fact the contract was 3S, neither of the above methods is used, because they are suboptimal. EVERYONE who has commented on this situation has stressed director's responsibility to determine the probably outcome in an optimal fashion using the available information. So if you are calling this a straightjacket, then yes, the director is in a straight jacket -- the laws let him use whatever subotimal method he wants, but he will be violating accepted practice and the almost certain appeal will not support him. Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, everything is the same. You are right. I think the director has a responsibility to use the most efficient method possible, giving the available information. I don't the director can all of a sudden decide to be suboptimal and follow the extremely inefficient method you suggested. I would guess, and you are welcome to correct me, that the director cannot selectively adopt an illogical interpretation of a law because he thinks the logical interpretation doesn't punish the OS enough. Bob From mikeamostd at btinternet.com Sun Mar 8 23:03:29 2009 From: mikeamostd at btinternet.com (Mike Amos) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:03:29 -0000 Subject: [blml] Director in a sraitjacket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6BDFC99092954DD99FE5DDFF3446973B@mamoslaptop> Grattan wrote > +=+ The principle is that the laws do not put the Director > into a straitjacket. No the men in white coats can do that (and I know quite a few candidates) MIKE From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Sun Mar 8 23:28:55 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:28:55 -0000 Subject: [blml] Director in a sraitjacket References: <6BDFC99092954DD99FE5DDFF3446973B@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <001301c9a03d$54f129b0$2401a8c0@p41600> They're coming to take him away ha ha, he he , ho ho etc > No the men in white coats can do that (and I know quite a few candidates) > > MIKE From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 8 14:07:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:07:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Has the list died References: <000601c99e39$29ebe620$7dc3b260$@com> Message-ID: <002e01c99fee$da8b60d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan EndicottThe last message I received was approximately 48 hours ago What's happening? Not very much, obviously. This may or may not be a good thing. David Burn London, England ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/20090308/4b2f8144/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Mon Mar 9 09:14:22 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 09:14:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities (amplification) In-Reply-To: <001301c99f1e$10c98f90$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001301c99f1e$10c98f90$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: 2009/3/7 Grattan : > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Sir, I have found you an argument; > but I am not obliged to find you an > understanding." > ? ? ? (Boswell's 'Life of Johnson') > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > >> > ?+=+ There was, of course, the instance many years ago > ?at the Liverpool Bridge Club. ?Ralph Churney, player > ?standing in as Director at a club evening pairs, was called > ?to a table where four 'middle-aged' ladies were seated. > ?At the end of the auction presumed declarer opined a > ?cup of tea would be nice and faced an opening lead. Her > ?LHO had agreed about the tea and faced a 'dummy'. > ?The next player then enquired as to the contract. > ?The fourth player was confused. >> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ G ~ ? +=+ More confused than the other three, or do you imply that she was the only one? roflmao > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Mon Mar 9 13:55:15 2009 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry BENNETT) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:55:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <004601c9a0b6$4d692c00$2401a8c0@p41600> The club decided to have a weekly handicapped pivot teams league. The idea was for some good players to gather 3 to 5 lesser mortals into a team. They would then play 8 bds with each team memeber, captains playing at the same table throughout. I got dragged in occasionally and on this particular evening, a team mate at the other table was the club chairman. He'd arrived in a trump grand slam, and an over- eager RHO led a side ace of a suit in which our hero held KQx. He quickly banned the lead of that suit, and LHO now led another side-suit ace which won the trick. Dummy went down with a void in the first led suit, and the grand would have made had the OLOT been accepted. vlad ************************************** Is there any other kind of "dudgeon" than "high" ?? ************************************** From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 9 15:21:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 14:21:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004601c9a0b6$4d692c00$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <003601c9a0c2$4c9fa400$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Ridiculosities > ************************************** > Is there any other kind of "dudgeon" than "high" ?? > +=+ I have heard the basement cells of Caernarfon Castle called a 'dudgeon'. :-) ~ G ~ +=+ ............................................................................................. [*In response, March 2009, to the request of Nicolas Sarkozy to devise a scheme to reduce the millefeuille layers of French political administration - some 30,000 communes and 4,000 cantons, 100 departments, 22 regions, and a central national government.] From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 9 17:44:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:44:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] Director in a sraitjacket References: <6BDFC99092954DD99FE5DDFF3446973B@mamoslaptop> Message-ID: <001401c9a0d6$750de460$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 10:03 PM Subject: [blml] Director in a sraitjacket > Grattan wrote > >> +=+ The principle is that the laws do not put the Director >> into a straitjacket. > > No the men in white coats can do that (and I know quite > a few candidates) > > MIKE > +=+ Cricket umpires ? And which are the candidates, the TDs? +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Mar 9 19:06:24 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:06:24 -0800 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws Message-ID: Have the French done their translation yet? If so, I can't find it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 9 22:29:03 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:29:03 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): [snip] >Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >everything is the same. [snip] Richard Hills quibbles: A classic example of the enthymeme fallacy. Robert's explicit assumption is "everything is the same", but his implicit and unspoken assumption is "the Director is rectifying an infraction". These two assumptions are a contradiction in terms; if the Director is rectifying an infraction, then the Director is not leaving everything the same (since by definition leaving everything the same would be an _unrectified_ infraction). W.S. Gilbert: "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox." 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 Mon Mar 9 23:02:13 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:02:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> Yes, they have and I have it (in book form). It can surely be ordered from the FFB. JE Marvin L French schrieb: > Have the French done their translation yet? If so, I can't find it. > > 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 geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 9 23:44:37 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:44:37 +0900 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> Message-ID: <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> You can find the French Laws on the FFB home page (below): http://www.ffbridge.asso.fr/competitions/gc.php?m=6,49,128&args=128 Scroll down to the bottom and click on the following to download/open PDF files: Fichiers a telecharger : Code International de Bridge (02/06/2008) (02/06/2008 - 562.58 ko) Erratum Code 2007 (14/08/2008) (14/08/2008 - 24.33 ko) Bon de commande Code 2007 (02/05/2008 - 100.36 ko) Code vf 2003 (13/11/2007 - 380.22 ko) -Bob Jeff Easterson writes: >Yes, they have and I have it (in book form). It can surely be ordered >from the FFB. JE > >Marvin L French schrieb: >> Have the French done their translation yet? If so, I can't find it. >> >> Marv >> Marvin L French >> San Diego, CA >> www.marvinfrench.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 10 00:08:12 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:08:12 -0800 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> Robert Geller wrote: > You can find the French Laws on the FFB home page (below): > http://www.ffbridge.asso.fr/competitions/gc.php?m=6,49,128&args=128 > > Scroll down to the bottom and click on the following to > download/open > PDF files: > > Fichiers a telecharger : > Code International de Bridge (02/06/2008) (02/06/2008 - 562.58 ko) > Erratum Code 2007 (14/08/2008) (14/08/2008 - 24.33 ko) > Bon de commande Code 2007 (02/05/2008 - 100.36 ko) > Code vf 2003 (13/11/2007 - 380.22 ko) > Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal play or all normal plays. The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 10 01:25:59 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:25:59 +0100 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws In-Reply-To: <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French ............ > Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of > 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. > > "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal > play or all normal plays. > > The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe > quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. > > I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." I wonder where in Law 70D1 you have read "any normal line" because in my official copy of Law 70D1 it says: "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful." Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 10 01:29:35 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:29:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 12C1(e)(ii) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott (6th March 2009): +=+ The Director must form an opinion as to what results may potentially occur. He is then to judge in each case what is the probability of its occurring. He is entitled to a little help from his friends. In 12C1(d) he is given succour if he can conceive of too many potential outcomes. I have seen various guidance as to a level at which the mind is too stretched. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills (14th February 2007): >A better example would be the vul non-offending side bidding to >4H, cold for ten tricks. The offending side has previously >committed MI and now commits use of UI by bidding 4S. Without >the MI, the non-offending side would double 4S, but because of >the MI the non-offending side bids 5H, down one. > >There is a one-sixth or better chance that 4Sx would be -800, Richard Hills (10th March 2009): That is, at all probable if the Law 16 infraction had occurred. Richard Hills (14th February 2007): >but the one-third or better chance 4Sx is merely a -500 >penalty. Richard Hills (10th March 2009): That is, likely if the Law 75 infraction had not occurred and/or was corrected in time via Law 20F4. Richard Hills (14th February 2007): >In that case, the non-offending side is awarded +620, Richard Hills (10th March 2009): The likely result if the Law 16 infraction had not occurred. Richard Hills (14th February 2007): >but the offending side gets -800. Richard Hills: The at all probable result if the Law 16 infraction occurred, but there was a timely correction of the Law 75 infraction via Law 20F4. * * * Okay, Adam Wildavsky, does this example validate the Drafting Committee's original versions of Laws 12C1(e)(i) [retained by ACBL] and 12C1(e)(ii) [changed by ACBL] ??? (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 favourable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred. (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavourable result that was at all probable. 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 Mar 10 01:42:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:42:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com><200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000c01c9a119$1c7c43d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:08 PM Subject: Re: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws < > The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe > quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. > > I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." > +=+ If the French translation reflects accurately the meaning of the English text, authoritatively interpreted, there can be no objection to it. The translators were aware of the Beijing minutes, and like various translators in other languages, were able to seek advice if they had a difficulty. ~ G ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 10 02:44:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:44:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:29:03 -0500, wrote: > > Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): > > [snip] > >> Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >> same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >> everything is the same. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > A classic example of the enthymeme fallacy. Robert's explicit > assumption is "everything is the same", but his implicit and > unspoken assumption is "the Director is rectifying an infraction". > > These two assumptions are a contradiction in terms; if the Director > is rectifying an infraction, then the Director is not leaving > everything the same (since by definition leaving everything the > same would be an _unrectified_ infraction). > > W.S. Gilbert: > > "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox." Thanks, but nothing ingenious here from me. L12C13(ii) is "For an offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable that was at all probable." The ACBL added "had the irregularity not occurred." The issue is if this addition changes anything. Grattan (or the DSC or whoever) thought that this changed the meaning, because this law should also include calculating the probability had the irregularity occurred. (An anonymous director also implied that he would like the right to interpret the law without this addition.) So, without the ACBL addition, we are literally trying to determine the outcome given that everything is the same. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 10 02:12:10 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:12:10 -0000 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002101c9a11d$3fee11a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 9:29 PM Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): > > [snip] > >>Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >>same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >>everything is the same. > > [snip] > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > A classic example of the enthymeme fallacy. Robert's explicit > assumption is "everything is the same", but his implicit and > unspoken assumption is "the Director is rectifying an infraction". > > These two assumptions are a contradiction in terms; if the > Director is rectifying an infraction, then the Director is not > leaving everything the same (since by definition leaving > everything the same would be an _unrectified_ infraction). > > W.S. Gilbert: > > "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox." > +=+ If the Director does not adjust the score when the laws say he "shall" do so, as in Law 16B3, we deduce that he must have ruled that the conditions specified do not apply. In the case of Law 16C3, a use of UI ('the infraction of law') has not "resulted in an advantage for the offender" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 10 02:29:21 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:29:21 -0000 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002e01c9a11f$a68c23f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:44 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:29:03 -0500, wrote: > >> >> Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): >> >> [snip] >> >>> Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >>> same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >>> everything is the same. >> >> [snip] >> >> Richard Hills quibbles: >> >> A classic example of the enthymeme fallacy. Robert's explicit >> assumption is "everything is the same", but his implicit and >> unspoken assumption is "the Director is rectifying an infraction". >> >> These two assumptions are a contradiction in terms; if the Director >> is rectifying an infraction, then the Director is not leaving >> everything the same (since by definition leaving everything the >> same would be an _unrectified_ infraction). >> >> W.S. Gilbert: >> >> "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox." > > Thanks, but nothing ingenious here from me. L12C13(ii) is "For an > offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable that was at all > probable." The ACBL added "had the irregularity not occurred." The issue > is if this addition changes anything. > > Grattan (or the DSC or whoever) thought that this changed the meaning, > because this law should also include calculating the probability had the > irregularity occurred. (An anonymous director also implied that he would > like the right to interpret the law without this addition.) > > So, without the ACBL addition, we are literally trying to determine the > outcome given that everything is the same. > +=+ No. The Director first of all rules whether an irregularity has caused damage to the non-offending side. If so, he then determines what outcomes have a quantifiable measure of probability from all the potential outcomes including those where the irregularity does not occur and those where the irregularity does occur. In the latter case he is not restricted to what actually happened at the table if he judges that other actions following the irregularity had a quantifiable measure of probability - could well have ensued. From among all of these he awards the one which is most unfavourable for the offending side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 10 02:35:58 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:35:58 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped Message-ID: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:44 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:29:03 -0500, wrote: >> >>> >>> Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>>> Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >>>> same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >>>> everything is the same. >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> Richard Hills quibbles: >>> >>> A classic example of the enthymeme fallacy. Robert's explicit >>> assumption is "everything is the same", but his implicit and >>> unspoken assumption is "the Director is rectifying an infraction". >>> >>> These two assumptions are a contradiction in terms; if the Director >>> is rectifying an infraction, then the Director is not leaving >>> everything the same (since by definition leaving everything the >>> same would be an _unrectified_ infraction). >>> >>> W.S. Gilbert: >>> >>> "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox." >> >> Thanks, but nothing ingenious here from me. L12C13(ii) is "For an >> offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable that was at all >> probable." The ACBL added "had the irregularity not occurred." The issue >> is if this addition changes anything. >> >> Grattan (or the DSC or whoever) thought that this changed the meaning, >> because this law should also include calculating the probability had the >> irregularity occurred. (An anonymous director also implied that he would >> like the right to interpret the law without this addition.) >> >> So, without the ACBL addition, we are literally trying to determine the >> outcome given that everything is the same. >> +=+ No. The Director first of all rules whether an irregularity has caused damage to the non-offending side. If so, he then determines what outcomes have a quantifiable measure of probability from all the potential outcomes including those where the irregularity does not occur and those where the irregularity does occur. In the latter case he is not restricted to what actually happened at the table if he judges that other actions following the irregularity had a quantifiable measure of probability - could well have ensued. From among all of these he awards the one which is most unfavourable for the offending side. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 10 02:52:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:52:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002101c9a11d$3fee11a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Hilaire Belloc, The Bad Child's Book of Beasts, The Lion: The Lion, the Lion, he dwells in the waste, He has a big head and a very small waist; But his shoulders are stark, and his jaws they are grim, And a good little child will not play with him. Grattan Endicott: +=+ If the Director does not adjust the score when the laws say he "shall" do so, as in Law 16B3, we deduce that he must have ruled that the conditions specified do not apply. In the case of Law 16C3, a use of UI ('the infraction of law') has not "resulted in an advantage for the offender" ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hilaire Belloc, The Bad Child's Book of Beasts, The Tiger: The Tiger on the other hand, is kittenish and mild, He makes a pretty playfellow for any little child; And mothers of large families (who claim to common sense) Will find a Tiger well repays the trouble and expense. Richard Hills: Indeed an infraction which gives no advantage to the offending side = an infraction which gives no damage to the nonoffending side = an infraction which gives no basis for a Law 12 score adjustment. However, a kittenish Director may still apply a procedural penalty to the offending player if it would be particularly careless or inferior for that class of player to commit such a gross infraction. Procedural (and/or disciplinary) penalties are assessed independently of any damage done. For example, in Aussie national championships there is a compulsory 3 VP procedural penalty if your mobile (cell) phone rings during a session. 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 Mar 10 07:14:49 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:14:49 -0800 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com><4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> Message-ID: <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> > On Behalf Of Marvin L French > ............ >> Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of >> 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. >> >> "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal >> play or all normal plays. >> >> The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe >> quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. >> >> I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." > > I wonder where in Law 70D1 you have read "any normal line" because > in my > official copy of Law 70D1 it says: > > "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be > less > successful." > Very sorry, it's 70E1, not 70D1. But while we're at 70D1, shouldn't that be "another line of play"? Alternative means one of two choices in a legal document, and there could be more than two lines of play. The French have it right, "une autre ligne." Mistranslation? 70E1: "or would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play..." (the rest of the sentence seems unnecessary, if it has any meaning at all) AJxxx opposite Kxxxx Defender with a void will fail to follow suit on a normal line of play (low card led through him), so declarer's claim of five tricks with no stated line is valid. This needs a "no matter which," (n'importe quelle ligne, as the French put it) or just say "all normal lines of play." Law 70D3 uses "any" in its other sense, meaning that just one is sufficient. It should be "a normal line of play," Here the French may have it wrong, "n'importe quel jeu normal," but I'm not sure. "Un jeu normal" seems sufficient. I wrote about these things many times in years past on BLML, including references to the French Laws, to no avail. While the intended meaning of ambiguous words is usually clear from the context, they should be avoided in a legal document. Marv Marvin L French (who is not a French speaker, despite the name) San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 10 07:55:37 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:55:37 +1100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Wikipedia trivia on The French Connection (1971 Oscar winner): "The sequence on the Times Square-Grand Central shuttle took two days to shoot. Car 6609 has been preserved and is in the New York Transit Museum. It is occasionally operated on fantrips along with other preserved cars." Marvin French asserted: [snip] >While the intended meaning of ambiguous words is usually clear from the >context, they should be avoided in a legal document. > >Marv >Marvin L French (who is not a French speaker, despite the name) Richard Hills quibbles: While the intended _meanings_ of ambiguous words _are_ usually clear from the context, _ambiguous words_ should be avoided in a legal document. Monty Python's Life of Brian (Centurion ridiculously ignoring context): CENTURION: What's this then? 'ROMANES EUNT DOMUS.' People called Romanes, they go the house? BRIAN: It, it says 'Romans go home'. CENTURION: No, it doesn't. What's Latin for 'Roman'? 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 Mar 10 10:23:54 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:23:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction In-Reply-To: <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com><4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <000e01c9a161$ef3000d0$cd900270$@no> On Behalf Of Marvin L French ......... > Very sorry, it's 70E1, not 70D1. > > But while we're at 70D1, shouldn't that be "another line of play"? > Alternative means one of two choices in a legal document, and there > could be more than two lines of play. The French have it right, "une > autre ligne." Mistranslation? My Oxford (English) says: Alternative: (thing that is) one of two or more possibilities My Webster (American) says: Alternative: One of the things to be chosen. Nothing limits alternatives to just two. > 70E1: "or would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play..." According to both my Oxford and my Webster the word "any" here is literally ambiguous, but from the context it should be clear that the meaning is "whichever line of play the claimer might choose". > (the rest of the sentence seems unnecessary, if it has any meaning > at all) > > AJxxx opposite Kxxxx > > Defender with a void will fail to follow suit on a normal line of > play (low card led through him), so declarer's claim of five tricks > with no stated line is valid. "Any" means that the void must show up before the claimer has to decide which high card he will use first. > > This needs a "no matter which," (n'importe quelle ligne, as the > French put it) or just say "all normal lines of play." That is precisely what the word "any" means in Law 70E1 and frankly I don't see any problem with it. > > Law 70D3 uses "any" in its other sense, meaning that just one is > sufficient. So what? Is there any problem with this in the English or American language? It should be "a normal line of play," I disagree. Law 70D3 does not refer to or limits itself to "normal" plays; it refers to any play whatsoever. Here the French > may have it wrong, "n'importe quel jeu normal," but I'm not sure. > "Un jeu normal" seems sufficient. > > I wrote about these things many times in years past on BLML, In that case you should rest assured that your points have been considered but found of minor importance by the appropriate persons. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 10 10:37:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:37:35 -0000 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002101c9a163$dbc19160$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Wikipedia trivia on The French Connection (1971 Oscar winner): > > "The sequence on the Times Square-Grand Central shuttle took two days to > shoot. Car 6609 has been preserved and is in the New York Transit Museum. > It is occasionally operated on fantrips along with other preserved cars." > > Marvin French asserted: > > [snip] > >>While the intended meaning of ambiguous words is usually clear from the >>context, they should be avoided in a legal document. >> >>Marv >>Marvin L French (who is not a French speaker, despite the name) > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > While the intended _meanings_ of ambiguous words _are_ usually clear from > the context, _ambiguous words_ should be avoided in a legal document. > > Monty Python's Life of Brian (Centurion ridiculously ignoring context): > > CENTURION: What's this then? 'ROMANES EUNT DOMUS.' People called Romanes, > they go the house? > > BRIAN: It, it says 'Romans go home'. > > CENTURION: No, it doesn't. What's Latin for 'Roman'? > +=+ Ambiguity? Concise Oxford English Dictionary: "Alternative' = (noun) one of two or more available possibilities (adjective) - of two or more things, available as another possibility. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 10 12:07:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:07:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped In-Reply-To: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:35:58 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Grattan" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:29 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Out of the question to meddle with >> the Auvergne" >> [ Junior Minister comments on the >> Balladur proposals to redraw the >> political map of France.] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:44 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> >>> On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:29:03 -0500, wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>>> Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >>>>> same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >>>>> everything is the same. >>>> >>>> [snip] >>>> >>>> Richard Hills quibbles: >>>> >>>> A classic example of the enthymeme fallacy. Robert's explicit >>>> assumption is "everything is the same", but his implicit and >>>> unspoken assumption is "the Director is rectifying an infraction". >>>> >>>> These two assumptions are a contradiction in terms; if the Director >>>> is rectifying an infraction, then the Director is not leaving >>>> everything the same (since by definition leaving everything the >>>> same would be an _unrectified_ infraction). >>>> >>>> W.S. Gilbert: >>>> >>>> "A paradox, a paradox, a most ingenious paradox." >>> >>> Thanks, but nothing ingenious here from me. L12C13(ii) is "For an >>> offending side the score assigned is the most unfavorable that was at >>> all >>> probable." The ACBL added "had the irregularity not occurred." The >>> issue >>> is if this addition changes anything. >>> >>> Grattan (or the DSC or whoever) thought that this changed the meaning, >>> because this law should also include calculating the probability had >>> the >>> irregularity occurred. (An anonymous director also implied that he >>> would >>> like the right to interpret the law without this addition.) >>> >>> So, without the ACBL addition, we are literally trying to determine the >>> outcome given that everything is the same. >>> > +=+ No. The Director first of all rules whether an irregularity has > caused > damage to the non-offending side. Not relevant to our discussion, but the director really can't do this first. > If so, he then determines what outcomes > have a quantifiable measure of probability from all the potential > outcomes > including those where the irregularity does not occur and those where > the > irregularity does occur. In the latter case he is not restricted to what > actually happened at the table if he judges that other actions following > the irregularity had a quantifiable measure of probability - could well > have ensued. Argh, you are getting me to discuss theory of probability. Isn't there some internet rule that the first person to talk about theory of probability automatically loses the argument? Actions do NOT have probabilities. Probabilities are things created by people. So we can talk about the probability of rain tomorrow. In reality, it either rains tomorrow or it doesn't. We can talk about the probability that the trillionth digit of pi is 2 (p = 1/10), even though either it is or isn't. In the same assumption (the digits of pi are essentially random) we can talk about the probability that the third digit of pi is 2 (p = 1/10), even though it isn't. If I could remember the formula for the density of primes, I could calculate a probability for 5 being a prime number. So the director creates probabilities. To calculate probable outcomes of a 2S contract, the director could assume that the cards are played at random. That's inefficient, but it generates probabilities -- in your words, it creates "actions with quantifiable measures of probability". The laws don't say how to calculate probabilities. So, in theory, a director could use any whacky, inefficient method he wanted. But if you look at what directors actually do, they attempt to use all available information in an optimal way to generate as good of probabilities as possible. Everyone here seems very keen to do this. I think you could probably interpret the law to support that a director has a responsibility to do so (p = .65). The notable exception is your attempt to calculate the probability that it rained yesterday. Let's see. I can find out the frequency of rain any random day for any random location on the planet. Say that generates a probability of .1 for rain, because of those deserts. Or I could generate a probability based on the frequency of rain in my area for any given day. Say that is .15. Even better is the frequency of rain for the second week of March in my area. That might push it to .2. So proabilities can be created. Except I know it rained yesterday. Given all of my available information, used in an optimal way, I can assign a p = 1.0 probability to the event of rain yesterday. Same thing when I try to figure out what happened had the irregularity occurred. IT DID OCCUR! We are in the category of figuring out the probability that it rained yesterday, or the probability that the third digit of pi is 2. WE KNOW THE ANSWER FOR CERTAIN. Yes, we can generate suboptimal probabilities. But why would anyone think to do it? And given that you thought to do it, why would you defend it? I can understand that you might want to generate probabilities this way for the auction (but never the play of the hand), and then selectively when you wanted to punish the OS more than the laws would allow. But no straightforward reading of the laws would allow this selectivity. And no straightforward reading would require the director to usually use optimal probabilities most of the time but then be required occasionally to use obviously suboptimal probabilities. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 10 13:06:01 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:06:01 -0500 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction In-Reply-To: <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:14:49 -0500, Marvin L French wrote: > > >> On Behalf Of Marvin L French >> ............ >>> Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of >>> 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. >>> >>> "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal >>> play or all normal plays. >>> >>> The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe >>> quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. >>> >>> I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." >> >> I wonder where in Law 70D1 you have read "any normal line" because >> in my >> official copy of Law 70D1 it says: >> >> "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be >> less >> successful." >> > Very sorry, it's 70E1, not 70D1. > > But while we're at 70D1, shouldn't that be "another line of play"? > Alternative means one of two choices in a legal document, and there > could be more than two lines of play. The French have it right, "une > autre ligne." Mistranslation? > > 70E1: "or would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play..." > (the rest of the sentence seems unnecessary, if it has any meaning > at all) > > AJxxx opposite Kxxxx > > Defender with a void will fail to follow suit on a normal line of > play (low card led through him), so declarer's claim of five tricks > with no stated line is valid. > > This needs a "no matter which," (n'importe quelle ligne, as the > French put it) or just say "all normal lines of play." > > Law 70D3 uses "any" in its other sense, meaning that just one is > sufficient. It should be "a normal line of play," Here the French > may have it wrong, "n'importe quel jeu normal," but I'm not sure. > "Un jeu normal" seems sufficient. > > I wrote about these things many times in years past on BLML, > including references to the French Laws, to no avail. While the > intended meaning of ambiguous words is usually clear from the > context, they should be avoided in a legal document. > > Marv > Marvin L French (who is not a French speaker, despite the name) > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com The plural also doesn't work. In the course of exploring a line of play, a defender might show out in a suit. Then it becomes logical to allow declarer to finesse, in that line of play. The fact that that defender might not show out on another line of play should be irrelevant and I sincerely doubt any director would disallow the finesse just because the player would not show out on some other normal line of play. Bob, who posted this example 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 when LHO leads a heart. 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. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 10 12:38:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:38:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction In-Reply-To: References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49B65149.8030809@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:14:49 -0500, Marvin L French > wrote: > > >> >>> On Behalf Of Marvin L French >>> ............ >>> >>>> Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of >>>> 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. >>>> >>>> "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal >>>> play or all normal plays. >>>> >>>> The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe >>>> quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. >>>> >>>> I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." >>>> >>> I wonder where in Law 70D1 you have read "any normal line" because >>> in my >>> official copy of Law 70D1 it says: >>> >>> "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be >>> less >>> successful." >>> >>> >> Very sorry, it's 70E1, not 70D1. >> >> But while we're at 70D1, shouldn't that be "another line of play"? >> Alternative means one of two choices in a legal document, and there >> could be more than two lines of play. The French have it right, "une >> autre ligne." Mistranslation? >> >> 70E1: "or would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play..." >> (the rest of the sentence seems unnecessary, if it has any meaning >> at all) >> >> AJxxx opposite Kxxxx >> >> Defender with a void will fail to follow suit on a normal line of >> play (low card led through him), so declarer's claim of five tricks >> with no stated line is valid. >> >> This needs a "no matter which," (n'importe quelle ligne, as the >> French put it) or just say "all normal lines of play." >> >> Law 70D3 uses "any" in its other sense, meaning that just one is >> sufficient. It should be "a normal line of play," Here the French >> may have it wrong, "n'importe quel jeu normal," but I'm not sure. >> "Un jeu normal" seems sufficient. >> AG : as a translator who struggled at times with stylistic differences in the use of quantitative markers, I offer my experience here : "any" in 70E1 wuold efficiently be replaced by "every", to avoid ambiguity. "n'importe quelle" is a good translation, as would be "toute". Formally, "n'importe quelle" translates "any", while "toute" (singular) translates "every" and "chaque" translates "each". "any" in L70D1 would efficiently be replaced by "some", and in that case "une" is right. "any" in that sense could be translated as "une ... quelconque" but this seems unnecessary, or by "quelque", but this is nearly obsolete. But surely, using "every" and "some", if perhaps less pure, would avoid any (!) ambiguity. Best regards Alain From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 10 13:50:36 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:50:36 -0400 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction In-Reply-To: References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2009, at 8:06 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:14:49 -0500, Marvin L French > > wrote: > >>> On Behalf Of Marvin L French >>> ............ >>>> Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of >>>> 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. >>>> >>>> "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal >>>> play or all normal plays. >>>> >>>> The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe >>>> quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. >>>> >>>> I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." >>> >>> I wonder where in Law 70D1 you have read "any normal line" because >>> in my >>> official copy of Law 70D1 it says: >>> >>> "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be >>> less >>> successful." >> >> Very sorry, it's 70E1, not 70D1. >> >> But while we're at 70D1, shouldn't that be "another line of play"? >> Alternative means one of two choices in a legal document, and there >> could be more than two lines of play. The French have it right, "une >> autre ligne." Mistranslation? >> >> 70E1: "or would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play..." >> (the rest of the sentence seems unnecessary, if it has any meaning >> at all) >> >> AJxxx opposite Kxxxx >> >> Defender with a void will fail to follow suit on a normal line of >> play (low card led through him), so declarer's claim of five tricks >> with no stated line is valid. >> >> This needs a "no matter which," (n'importe quelle ligne, as the >> French put it) or just say "all normal lines of play." >> >> Law 70D3 uses "any" in its other sense, meaning that just one is >> sufficient. It should be "a normal line of play," Here the French >> may have it wrong, "n'importe quel jeu normal," but I'm not sure. >> "Un jeu normal" seems sufficient. >> >> I wrote about these things many times in years past on BLML, >> including references to the French Laws, to no avail. While the >> intended meaning of ambiguous words is usually clear from the >> context, they should be avoided in a legal document. > > The plural also doesn't work. In the course of exploring a line of > play, a > defender might show out in a suit. Then it becomes logical to allow > declarer to finesse, in that line of play. The fact that that defender > might not show out on another line of play should be irrelevant and I > sincerely doubt any director would disallow the finesse just > because the > player would not show out on some other normal line of play. > > Bob, who posted this example > > 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 when LHO leads a heart. > > 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. It's easy to get hung up on language, but the intention is clear. Think about it this way: In evaluating alternative lines of play, we do not consider obviously irrational plays, such as throwing kings under aces or running suits from the bottom up. Failing to take a proven finesse (through a player whose partner has already shown out of the suit) that will gain a trick is treated as an obviously irrational play, on a par with the examples cited. WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 11 02:25:33 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:25:33 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): [snip] >>>Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >>>same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >>>everything is the same. [snip] {other blmlers' postings completely snipped} Grattan Endicott advised: >>+=+ No. The Director first of all rules whether an irregularity has >>caused damage to the non-offending side. Robert Frick asserted: >Not relevant to our discussion, Richard Hills quibbles: (a) The only time when the Director leaves "everything the same" is when the Director chooses not to rectify the infraction. (b) The only time when the Director chooses not to rectify the infraction is when the non-offending side has not been damaged by the infraction (e.g. the opponents have a bidding debacle, so one opponent infracts by giving MI to the non-offending side; but the MI infraction does not cause damage due to the bidding debacle concluding with a contract of 7NTxx -7600). (c) So it is highly relevant to an "everything the same" discussion whether the infraction "caused damage to the non-offending side". Robert Frick asserted: >but the director really can't do this first. Richard Hills quibbles: Even players can do this first. In a recent Canberra Butler Pairs LHO dealt and passed, pard opened a vulnerable 11-14 1NT, RHO slooowly passed (holding a balanced 16 hcp, but too timid to try a penalty double opposite a passed partner), I passed (with my grotty balanced near-yarborough), and LHO chose to balance with a passed-hand penalty double on 9 hcp. The opponents eventually arrived in 2H, cold for 11 tricks, -200 to us. I used my Law 9A right ("may") to avoid calling attention to the UI infraction, since we were not damaged. 1NT passed out would be -300 or worse to our side, plus with the field mostly reaching 4H for -650 we were picking up mega-imps against the Butler datum. Grattan Endicott continued advising: >>If so, he then determines what outcomes have a quantifiable measure >>of probability from all the potential outcomes including those >>where the irregularity does not occur and those where the >>irregularity does occur. In the latter case he is not restricted to >>what actually happened at the table if he judges that other actions >>following the irregularity had a quantifiable measure of >>probability - could well have ensued. >> From among all of these he awards the one which is most >>unfavourable for the offending side. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Robert Frick affirmed the consequent: [snip] >Except I know it rained yesterday. Given all of my available >information, used in an optimal way, I can assign a p = 1.0 >probability to the event of rain yesterday. > >Same thing when I try to figure out what happened had the >irregularity occurred. IT DID OCCUR! We are in the category of >figuring out the probability that it rained yesterday, or the >probability that the third digit of pi is 2. WE KNOW THE ANSWER FOR >CERTAIN. [snip] Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes", example of Affirming the Consequent fallacy on page 174: "There's an old saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, we haven't regulated flamethrowers heretofore, so it follows that the situation ain't broke, 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 Wed Mar 11 02:40:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:40:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >While the intended meaning of ambiguous words is usually clear from >the context, they should be avoided in a legal document. > >Marv >Marvin L French (who is not a French speaker, despite the name) Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes", example of contextual ambiguity on pages 145-146: Jesus was making his usual rounds in heaven when he noticed a wizened, white-haired old man sitting in a corner looking very disconsolate. "See here, old fellow," said Jesus kindly, "this is heaven. The sun is shining, you've got all you could want to eat, all the instruments you might want to play -- you're supposed to be blissfully happy! What's wrong?" "Well," said the old man, "you see, I was a carpenter on earth, and lost my dearly beloved son at an early age. And here in heaven I was hoping more than anything to find him." Tears sprang to Jesus's eyes. "Father!" he cried. The old man jumped to his feet, bursting into tears, and shouted, "Pinocchio!" Law 26A2, Pommy translation: .....declarer may either, (a) require the offender's partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit); or (b) prohibit offender's partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender?s partner retains the lead. Law 26A2, Aussie / Kiwi translation: .....declarer may either, (a) require the offender's partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit; or (b) prohibit offender's partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender?s partner retains the lead. Law 26A2, Yankee translation: .....declarer may either (a) require the offender's partner to lead such a suit. If there is more than one declarer chooses the suit. (b) prohibit offender's partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender's partner retains the lead. Richard Hills: The Pommy translation is grammatically correct. The Aussie / Kiwi and Yankee translations are grammatically incorrect (in different ways), but in all three cases the context overwhelms the grammar, so Directors using all three Lawbooks should give identical Law 26A2 rulings. 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 Mar 11 04:06:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:06:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000e01c9a161$ef3000d0$cd900270$@no> Message-ID: Monty Python's Life of Brian: "But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what has the ACBL Laws Commission ever done for us?" Sven Pran asserted: >I disagree. Law 70D3 does not refer to or limits itself to "normal" >plays; it refers to any play whatsoever. Richard Hills quibbles: I disagree. While it is true that Law 70D3 does not limit itself to "normal" plays, it does limit itself to "probable" plays. 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." Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Mar 11 06:11:56 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:11:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9a207$e6a65120$b3f2f360$@com> [RH] Law 26A2, Pommy translation: .....declarer may either, (a) require the offender's partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit); or (b) prohibit offender's partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender?s partner retains the lead. The Pommy translation is grammatically correct. [DALB] No, it is not. That comma after "either" ought to be a colon, or (preferably) no punctuation mark at all. No doubt the Pommy version was influenced by the Yanks, who do not know what a colon is and who: (a) put commas where they should not; (b) do not put commas where they should. For example: If there is more than one declarer chooses the suit. A moment's reflection will serve to convince the diligent reader that there almost certainly is not more than one declarer, and thus to parse the sentence correctly. But... David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 11 07:40:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:40:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Walter Jerrold, Bon-Mots of Charles Lamb and Douglas Jerrold (1913): A friend was one day reading to Jerrold an account of a case in which a person named Ure was reproached with having suddenly jilted a young lady to whom he was engaged. "Ure seems to have turned out to be a base 'un," said Jerrold. Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 2001, Round of Eight, First Quarter Board 3 Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, East, hold: QJ3 AQT9 AQ2 Q94 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Chip Martel Bob Hamman Lew Stansby Paul Soloway Pass 1S (1) Pass ? (2) (1) Frequently as few as four spades. (2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: (a) A semi-artificial 2C response always shows four-plus clubs in a game-forcing hand unless responder has a three-card limit raise in spades. It also allows responder to find out if opener is minimum (opener rebids an artificial 2D) after which responder can give up on slam by signing off in 3NT. But 3NT systemically implies real clubs; and furthermore, (b) A direct 2NT response shows a balanced hand in either the 12-16 or 19-20 HCP range; so, (c) With this black hole in your explicitly agreed system: What doubtful call do you make? What other doubtful 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 ardelm at optusnet.com.au Wed Mar 11 08:19:40 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:19:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200903110719.n2B7JepF031042@mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 05:40 PM 11/03/2009, you wrote: >Walter Jerrold, Bon-Mots of Charles Lamb and Douglas Jerrold (1913): > >A friend was one day reading to Jerrold an account of a case in >which a person named Ure was reproached with having suddenly jilted >a young lady to whom he was engaged. > >"Ure seems to have turned out to be a base 'un," said Jerrold. > >Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 2001, Round of Eight, First Quarter >Board 3 >Dlr: South >Vul: East-West > >You, East, hold: > >QJ3 >AQT9 >AQ2 >Q94 > >The bidding has gone: > >SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >Chip Martel Bob Hamman Lew Stansby Paul Soloway >Pass 1S (1) Pass ? (2) > >(1) Frequently as few as four spades. > >(2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: > >(a) A semi-artificial 2C response always shows four-plus clubs in >a game-forcing hand unless responder has a three-card limit raise >in spades. It also allows responder to find out if opener is minimum >(opener rebids an artificial 2D) after which responder can give up >on slam by signing off in 3NT. But 3NT systemically implies real >clubs; and furthermore, > >(b) A direct 2NT response shows a balanced hand in either the 12-16 >or 19-20 HCP range; so, > >(c) With this black hole in your explicitly agreed system: > >What doubtful call do you make? >What other doubtful calls do you consider making? 2C, wtp Tony (Sydney) (winner of at least 1 previous bidding competition) From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Mar 11 08:36:40 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:36:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities In-Reply-To: <004601c9a0b6$4d692c00$2401a8c0@p41600> References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004601c9a0b6$4d692c00$2401a8c0@p41600> Message-ID: <49B76A08.5000400@jldata.fi> Apparently the chairman didn't know well known Larry Goldwater rule: A lead out of turn should generally be accepted. The rationale being that if a player does not know whose lead it is probably does not know the right lead either. Juuso Larry BENNETT wrote: > The club decided to have a weekly handicapped pivot > teams league. > The idea was for some good players to gather 3 to 5 > lesser mortals into a team. They would then play 8 > bds with each team memeber, captains playing at the > same table throughout. > > I got dragged in occasionally and on this particular > evening, a team mate at the other table was the club > chairman. He'd arrived in a trump grand slam, and an > over- eager RHO led a side ace of a suit in which > our hero held KQx. > He quickly banned the lead of that suit, and LHO now > led another side-suit ace which won the trick. > Dummy went down with a void in the first led suit, > and the grand would have made had the OLOT been > accepted. > > vlad > > ************************************** > Is there any other kind of "dudgeon" than "high" ?? > ************************************** > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Mar 11 09:24:32 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:24:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped In-Reply-To: References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49B77540.5000308@jldata.fi> Robert Frick wrote: > (snip) > Argh, you are getting me to discuss theory of probability. Isn't there > some internet rule that the first person to talk about theory of > probability automatically loses the argument? > > > > Hahah. Bruno de Finetti was especially fond of the aphorism:- /Probability does not exist/ Juuso -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090311/32b56167/attachment.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 10:20:18 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:20:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9a207$e6a65120$b3f2f360$@com> References: <000001c9a207$e6a65120$b3f2f360$@com> Message-ID: 2009/3/11 David Burn : > [RH] > > Law 26A2, Pommy translation: > > .....declarer may either, > (a) require the offender's partner to lead such a suit (if there are more than one declarer chooses the suit); > > or (b) prohibit offender's partner from leading (one) such suit. Such prohibition continues for as long as the offender?s partner retains the lead. > > The Pommy translation is grammatically correct. > > [DALB] > > No, it is not. That comma after "either" ought to be a colon, or (preferably) no punctuation mark at all. > > No doubt the Pommy version was influenced by the Yanks, who do not know what a colon is and who: (a) put commas where they should not; (b) do not put commas where they should. For example: > > If there is more than one declarer chooses the suit. > > A moment's reflection will serve to convince the diligent reader that there almost certainly is not more than one declarer, and thus to parse the sentence correctly. But... Well, you never know, David. I know of a case where the TD was called to a table in an international event, the screen had been raised, revealing two face-up leads and two dummies faced. This might be a case with no declarer..... (The ruling was that the correct lead stands, the incorrect lead is a major penalty card and declarer picked up his cards.) > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 10:24:51 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:24:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/3/11 : > > Walter Jerrold, Bon-Mots of Charles Lamb and Douglas Jerrold (1913): > > A friend was one day reading to Jerrold an account of a case in > which a person named Ure was reproached with having suddenly jilted > a young lady to whom he was engaged. > > "Ure seems to have turned out to be a base 'un," said Jerrold. > > Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 2001, Round of Eight, First Quarter > Board 3 > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > QJ3 > AQT9 > AQ2 > Q94 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH ? ? ? ? WEST ? ? ? ? NORTH ? ? ? ? EAST > Chip Martel ? Bob Hamman ? Lew Stansby ? Paul Soloway > Pass ? ? ? ? ?1S (1) ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ? ?? (2) > > (1) Frequently as few as four spades. > > (2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: > > (a) A semi-artificial 2C response always shows four-plus clubs in > a game-forcing hand unless responder has a three-card limit raise > in spades. It also allows responder to find out if opener is minimum > (opener rebids an artificial 2D) after which responder can give up > on slam by signing off in 3NT. But 3NT systemically implies real > clubs; and furthermore, > > (b) A direct 2NT response shows a balanced hand in either the 12-16 > or 19-20 HCP range; so, > > (c) With this black hole in your explicitly agreed system: > > What doubtful call do you make? > What other doubtful calls do you consider making? Before embarking on bidding, I'd like to know more about our agreements. Do we play a strong club system or not? If so, what's the upper limit for a 1S opening? Do we play canape? > > > 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 blml at bridgescore.de Wed Mar 11 10:27:54 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:27:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities In-Reply-To: <49B76A08.5000400@jldata.fi> References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004601c9a0b6$4d692c00$2401a8c0@p41600> <49B76A08.5000400@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <49B7841A.9030309@bridgescore.de> Hi, there is a conflicting rule - you should always reject the lead out of turn. Reason: If a player is that eager to lead, he surely has a very obvious (and therefore dangerous) choice. Regards, Christian Lapinjatka schrieb: > Apparently the chairman didn't know well known Larry Goldwater rule: > A lead out of turn should generally be accepted. The rationale being > that if a player does not know whose lead it is probably does not know > the right lead either. > > Juuso > > Larry BENNETT wrote: >> The club decided to have a weekly handicapped pivot >> teams league. >> The idea was for some good players to gather 3 to 5 >> lesser mortals into a team. They would then play 8 >> bds with each team memeber, captains playing at the >> same table throughout. >> >> I got dragged in occasionally and on this particular >> evening, a team mate at the other table was the club >> chairman. He'd arrived in a trump grand slam, and an >> over- eager RHO led a side ace of a suit in which >> our hero held KQx. >> He quickly banned the lead of that suit, and LHO now >> led another side-suit ace which won the trick. >> Dummy went down with a void in the first led suit, >> and the grand would have made had the OLOT been >> accepted. >> >> vlad >> >> ************************************** >> Is there any other kind of "dudgeon" than "high" ?? >> ************************************** >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Wed Mar 11 10:33:01 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:33:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000e01c9a161$ef3000d0$cd900270$@no> Message-ID: <000601c9a22c$5fb4b970$1f1e2c50$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au > Sven Pran asserted: > > >I disagree. Law 70D3 does not refer to or limits itself to "normal" > >plays; it refers to any play whatsoever. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > I disagree. While it is true that Law 70D3 does not limit itself to > "normal" plays, it does limit itself to "probable" plays. > > 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." I cannot imagine I'm that bad in understanding the English language? "if any play has occurred" refers to the fact that some play has actually occurred, not to any kind of probability? If no play has occurred after the claim then Law 70D3 is redundant, if any play - even an illegal play - has occurred then Law 70D3 kicks in with full force. Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 11 14:02:04 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:02:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] Ridiculosities In-Reply-To: <49B76A08.5000400@jldata.fi> References: <49B11806.9070301@aol.com> <002301c99f06$dacce110$0302a8c0@Mildred> <004601c9a0b6$4d692c00$2401a8c0@p41600> <49B76A08.5000400@jldata.fi> Message-ID: On Mar 11, 2009, at 3:36 AM, Lapinjatka wrote: > Apparently the chairman didn't know well known Larry Goldwater rule: JFTR, that should be Harry Goldwater. > A lead out of turn should generally be accepted. The rationale being > that if a player does not know whose lead it is probably does not know > the right lead either. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 11 14:44:56 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:44:56 +0100 Subject: [blml] ridiculosities Message-ID: <49B7C058.4080808@ulb.ac.be> Just remembered a rather old (and rather ridiculous) case. How do you rule this : (N) 1H (E) stop - slight tempo - 2D What if East tells you she momentarily forgot Diamonds were below Hearts ? Then she indeed believed she was making a skip bid, whence probable UI. What if East tells you she thought 'stoip' meant 'I'd like to pause a little' ? I'd say no penalty, becasue no information passed. But no. East thought the stop card meant 'partner, please pass'. Best regards Alain From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 15:22:53 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:22:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] ridiculosities Message-ID: I've got a couple of nice ones, both with beginners involved. The first one took place in a Blackwood sequence, where the 4NT bidder didn't get the hoped for response, and he could see that two aces were missing. And he didn't know about any mecanism to stop in 5NT. But he found the solution; STOP....5NT. His parnter got the message and quikly passed. The experienced opponents just laughed the incident away - and had a good story to tell. The second one is from a lecture for beginners. The teacher arrived at a table and watched this bidding sequence: pass - pass - double! He asked his student why he doubled. "Well, look here", the student said. "I've got a 4333 hand with opening strength and a crappy suit. Double describes my hand perfectly." -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 11 16:09:47 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:09:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] ridiculosities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49B7D43B.9080607@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > > The second one is from a lecture for beginners. The teacher arrived at > a table and watched this bidding sequence: pass - pass - double! > He asked his student why he doubled. "Well, look here", the student > said. "I've got a 4333 hand with opening strength and a crappy suit. > Double describes my hand perfectly." > > > Speaking of doubles, it has been difficult for us to explain to some opponents that a Forcing Pass couldn't be doubled for TO, as it's an opening. And, indded, it's a bit of our fault, because we used descriptive terms that make clear FP is treated as an opening - for example, pass - 1C was addressed in the 'responses' section of the CC, and pass - 1x - double was described as 'negatve', a word usually not used for taketout doubles of opening bids. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 11 16:09:47 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:09:47 +0100 Subject: [blml] ridiculosities In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49B7D43B.9080607@ulb.ac.be> Harald Skj?ran a ?crit : > > > The second one is from a lecture for beginners. The teacher arrived at > a table and watched this bidding sequence: pass - pass - double! > He asked his student why he doubled. "Well, look here", the student > said. "I've got a 4333 hand with opening strength and a crappy suit. > Double describes my hand perfectly." > > > Speaking of doubles, it has been difficult for us to explain to some opponents that a Forcing Pass couldn't be doubled for TO, as it's an opening. And, indded, it's a bit of our fault, because we used descriptive terms that make clear FP is treated as an opening - for example, pass - 1C was addressed in the 'responses' section of the CC, and pass - 1x - double was described as 'negatve', a word usually not used for taketout doubles of opening bids. Best regards Alain From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 11 16:44:05 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 10:44:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0903110844j16734f7au82f9e5763674f46c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, wrote: > > You, East, hold: > > QJ3 > AQT9 > AQ2 > Q94 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH ? ? ? ? WEST ? ? ? ? NORTH ? ? ? ? EAST > Chip Martel ? Bob Hamman ? Lew Stansby ? Paul Soloway > Pass ? ? ? ? ?1S (1) ? ? ? Pass ? ? ? ? ?? (2) > > (1) Frequently as few as four spades. > > (2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: > > (a) A semi-artificial 2C response always shows four-plus clubs in > a game-forcing hand unless responder has a three-card limit raise > in spades. It also allows responder to find out if opener is minimum > (opener rebids an artificial 2D) after which responder can give up > on slam by signing off in 3NT. But 3NT systemically implies real > clubs; and furthermore, > > (b) A direct 2NT response shows a balanced hand in either the 12-16 > or 19-20 HCP range; so, > > (c) With this black hole in your explicitly agreed system: > > What doubtful call do you make? > What other doubtful calls do you consider making? > Are we playing bridge? Ever hear of adjustments? That 17-HCP hand is worth less than 16 (I would guess it is about 15.7) points due to terrible shape and so many quacks. There is no problem. Bid 2NT, for the potential of your hand is in that range. Why would they make a range with an explicit gap and then not address the gap? I use 3NT for the gap in this kind of situation. Jerry Fusselman From olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr Wed Mar 11 17:05:29 2009 From: olivier.beauvillain at wanadoo.fr (olivier.beauvillain) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:05:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction In-Reply-To: <49B65149.8030809@ulb.ac.be> References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> <49B65149.8030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Hi, I was in the 2007 code-task force, we works on : translating in french, then trying to understand what the lawyer means, then writing with words that explains the lawyer's thinking. L70D1 says "... s'il y a une autre ligne de jeu normale* moins favorable" E.G. "if there is another normal* line of play less succesfull" Olivier Beauvillain ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction Robert Frick a ?crit : > On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:14:49 -0500, Marvin L French > wrote: > > >> >>> On Behalf Of Marvin L French >>> ............ >>> >>>> Thanks, Bob. I merely wanted to see if the French translation of >>>> 70D1 is superior to the official version and it is. >>>> >>>> "any normal play" is ambiguous, as it can mean any single normal >>>> play or all normal plays. >>>> >>>> The French translator realized this and made it "sur n'importe >>>> quelle ligne de jeu normal," i.e., no matter which. >>>> >>>> I hope no one considers this a "mistranslation." >>>> >>> I wonder where in Law 70D1 you have read "any normal line" because >>> in my >>> official copy of Law 70D1 it says: >>> >>> "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be >>> less >>> successful." >>> >>> >> Very sorry, it's 70E1, not 70D1. >> >> But while we're at 70D1, shouldn't that be "another line of play"? >> Alternative means one of two choices in a legal document, and there >> could be more than two lines of play. The French have it right, "une >> autre ligne." Mistranslation? >> >> 70E1: "or would fail to follow suit on any normal line of play..." >> (the rest of the sentence seems unnecessary, if it has any meaning >> at all) >> >> AJxxx opposite Kxxxx >> >> Defender with a void will fail to follow suit on a normal line of >> play (low card led through him), so declarer's claim of five tricks >> with no stated line is valid. >> >> This needs a "no matter which," (n'importe quelle ligne, as the >> French put it) or just say "all normal lines of play." >> >> Law 70D3 uses "any" in its other sense, meaning that just one is >> sufficient. It should be "a normal line of play," Here the French >> may have it wrong, "n'importe quel jeu normal," but I'm not sure. >> "Un jeu normal" seems sufficient. >> AG : as a translator who struggled at times with stylistic differences in the use of quantitative markers, I offer my experience here : "any" in 70E1 wuold efficiently be replaced by "every", to avoid ambiguity. "n'importe quelle" is a good translation, as would be "toute". Formally, "n'importe quelle" translates "any", while "toute" (singular) translates "every" and "chaque" translates "each". "any" in L70D1 would efficiently be replaced by "some", and in that case "une" is right. "any" in that sense could be translated as "une ... quelconque" but this seems unnecessary, or by "quelque", but this is nearly obsolete. But surely, using "every" and "some", if perhaps less pure, would avoid any (!) ambiguity. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml __________ Information provenant d'ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version de la base des signatures de virus 3923 (20090310) __________ Le message a ?t? v?rifi? par ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 11 17:57:39 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 08:57:39 -0800 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP><49B65149.8030809@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <80DE5B7F3767432F96EB92FD8B3432D4@MARVLAPTOP> Olivier Beauvillain wrote: Hi, I was in the 2007 code-task force, we works on : translating in french, then trying to understand what the lawyer means, then writing with words that explains the lawyer's thinking. L70D1 says "... s'il y a une autre ligne de jeu normale* moins favorable" E.G. "if there is another normal* line of play less succesfull" Olivier should be named to the Drafting Committee for the 2017 Laws, with his unique ability to explain "lawyer's thinking." A good translation should never be literal. For a masterful treatment of the art of translating, see *Le Bon Ton de Marot*, by Douglas R. Hofstadter. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 11 18:21:17 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:21:17 -0000 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com> <200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com> <4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP> <000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no> <4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP><49B65149.8030809@ulb.ac.be> <80DE5B7F3767432F96EB92FD8B3432D4@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:57 PM Subject: Re: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction I rather enjoyed translating "dick-head" as "tete de nuss" with my french friends recently. :) John > Olivier Beauvillain wrote: > > Hi, > I was in the 2007 code-task force, > we works on : > translating in french, then > trying to understand what the lawyer means, then > writing with words that explains the lawyer's thinking. > L70D1 says "... s'il y a une autre ligne de jeu normale* moins > favorable" > E.G. "if there is another normal* line of play less succesfull" > > Olivier should be named to the Drafting Committee for the 2017 Laws, > with his unique ability to explain "lawyer's thinking." > > A good translation should never be literal. For a masterful > treatment of the art of translating, see *Le Bon Ton de Marot*, by > Douglas R. Hofstadter. > > 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 Wed Mar 11 23:10:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:10:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000601c9a22c$5fb4b970$1f1e2c50$@no> Message-ID: Theodore Stephanides (1896-1983), Cities of the Mind: He should not have been killed at all; But fate just gave her head a shake and murmured "Clerical Mistake!" Richard Hills quibbled: >>I disagree. While it is true that Law 70D3 does not limit itself >>to "normal" plays, it does limit itself to "probable" plays. 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." Sven Pran counter-quibbled: >I cannot imagine I'm that bad in understanding the English >language? > >"if any play has occurred" refers to the fact that some play has >actually occurred, not to any kind of probability? > >If no play has occurred after the claim then Law 70D3 is redundant, >if any play - even an illegal play - has occurred then Law 70D3 >kicks in with full force. Richard Hills counter-counter-quibbles: But if play illegally continues after the claim, and a doubly illegal revoke then occurs, that Clerical Mistake of a revoke is not a "probable play", so is not accepted as evidence when the Director assesses the accuracy of the claim. Note the Law 70D3 phrases "may provide" and "may accept". It seems to me that Sven Pran is making the same "probable" error that Robert Frick made in another current thread. It seems to me that Sven and Robert have the enthymeme assumption that an "a posteriori" probability subsequent to an infraction must necessarily be of identical likelihood to an "a priori" probability at the moment before an infraction. Robert Frick counter-quibbled: >>>Even better is the frequency of rain for the second week of March >>>in my area. That might push it to .2. So probabilities can be >>>created. >>> >>>Except I know it rained yesterday. Given all of my available >>>information, used in an optimal way, I can assign a p = 1.0 >>>probability to the event of rain yesterday. Richard Hills counter-counter-quibbles: If one assumes that before the infraction of Law 68D there was a 20% chance that a particular player would revoke, that means there was a corresponding "probable play" of an 80% chance that the player would not revoke. But a posteriori, when the Director finally arrives at the table, Aristotle's Principle of the Excluded Middle means that that particular player either did not revoke after the Law 68D infraction (revoke p = 0.0) or did revoke (revoke p = 1.0). Since rectifying an infraction necessarily requires the Director to hop aboard a TARDIS to the moment before the infraction, then the a posteriori probabilities of 0.0 or 1.0 are irrelevant. It is the a priori probability of 0.2 at the moment before the infraction which is relevant. 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 Mar 12 00:53:15 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:53:15 -0500 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:10:02 -0500, wrote: > Theodore Stephanides (1896-1983), Cities of the Mind: > > He should not have been killed at all; > But fate just gave her head a shake > and murmured "Clerical Mistake!" > > Richard Hills quibbled: > >>> I disagree. While it is true that Law 70D3 does not limit itself >>> to "normal" plays, it does limit itself to "probable" plays. > > 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." > > Sven Pran counter-quibbled: > >> I cannot imagine I'm that bad in understanding the English >> language? >> >> "if any play has occurred" refers to the fact that some play has >> actually occurred, not to any kind of probability? >> >> If no play has occurred after the claim then Law 70D3 is redundant, >> if any play - even an illegal play - has occurred then Law 70D3 >> kicks in with full force. > > Richard Hills counter-counter-quibbles: > > But if play illegally continues after the claim, and a doubly > illegal revoke then occurs, that Clerical Mistake of a revoke is not > a "probable play", so is not accepted as evidence when the Director > assesses the accuracy of the claim. Note the Law 70D3 phrases "may > provide" and "may accept". > > It seems to me that Sven Pran is making the same "probable" error > that Robert Frick made in another current thread. > > It seems to me that Sven and Robert have the enthymeme assumption > that an "a posteriori" probability subsequent to an infraction must > necessarily be of identical likelihood to an "a priori" probability > at the moment before an infraction. > > Robert Frick counter-quibbled: > >>>> Even better is the frequency of rain for the second week of March >>>> in my area. That might push it to .2. So probabilities can be >>>> created. >>>> >>>> Except I know it rained yesterday. Given all of my available >>>> information, used in an optimal way, I can assign a p = 1.0 >>>> probability to the event of rain yesterday. > > Richard Hills counter-counter-quibbles: > > If one assumes that before the infraction of Law 68D there was a 20% > chance that a particular player would revoke, that means there was a > corresponding "probable play" of an 80% chance that the player would > not revoke. But a posteriori, when the Director finally arrives at > the table, Aristotle's Principle of the Excluded Middle means that > that particular player either did not revoke after the Law 68D > infraction (revoke p = 0.0) or did revoke (revoke p = 1.0). > > Since rectifying an infraction necessarily requires the Director to > hop aboard a TARDIS to the moment before the infraction, then the a > posteriori probabilities of 0.0 or 1.0 are irrelevant. It is the a > priori probability of 0.2 at the moment before the infraction which > is relevant. The law says "may". Suppose someone claims, then in the subsequent play blocks a suit. Suppose also that I would not consider this foolish play to be normal. Instead of granting the claim and postulating better play than actually occurred, I would accept the play that did occur. It's a nice law and one that a director could need and want. From svenpran at online.no Thu Mar 12 00:12:19 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:12:19 +0100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000601c9a22c$5fb4b970$1f1e2c50$@no> Message-ID: <000901c9a29e$d3f2ffa0$7bd8fee0$@no> On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au ............. > Sven Pran counter-quibbled: > > >I cannot imagine I'm that bad in understanding the English > >language? > > > >"if any play has occurred" refers to the fact that some play has > >actually occurred, not to any kind of probability? > > > >If no play has occurred after the claim then Law 70D3 is redundant, > >if any play - even an illegal play - has occurred then Law 70D3 > >kicks in with full force. > > Richard Hills counter-counter-quibbles: > > But if play illegally continues after the claim, and a doubly > illegal revoke then occurs, that Clerical Mistake of a revoke is not > a "probable play", so is not accepted as evidence when the Director > assesses the accuracy of the claim. Note the Law 70D3 phrases "may > provide" and "may accept". I have a feeling that this thread is about to become ridiculous. Of course I am fully aware that law 70D3 phrases "may provide" and "may accept", but a play that in fact has occurred after a claim cannot just be ignored as non-existent. So the director must try the situation with Law 70D3 but he is free to judge that the actual play occurred for instance as the result of confusion and does not serve as any evidence of what could have happened had the claim not been made. Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 12 01:36:31 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:36:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:25:33 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick asserted ("L12C1(e) part 1" thread): > > [snip] > >>>> Finally, we come to determining the outcome when everything is the >>>> same -- the auction is the same, the final contract is the same, >>>> everything is the same. > > [snip] > > Grattan Endicott continued advising: > >>> If so, he then determines what outcomes have a quantifiable measure >>> of probability from all the potential outcomes including those >>> where the irregularity does not occur and those where the >>> irregularity does occur. In the latter case he is not restricted to >>> what actually happened at the table if he judges that other actions >>> following the irregularity had a quantifiable measure of >>> probability - could well have ensued. >>> From among all of these he awards the one which is most >>> unfavourable for the offending side. >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Robert Frick affirmed the consequent: > > [snip] > >> Except I know it rained yesterday. Given all of my available >> information, used in an optimal way, I can assign a p = 1.0 >> probability to the event of rain yesterday. >> >> Same thing when I try to figure out what happened had the >> irregularity occurred. IT DID OCCUR! We are in the category of >> figuring out the probability that it rained yesterday, or the >> probability that the third digit of pi is 2. WE KNOW THE ANSWER FOR >> CERTAIN. > > [snip] > > Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to > Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy > and Jokes", example of Affirming the Consequent fallacy on page 174: > > "There's an old saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, we > haven't regulated flamethrowers heretofore, so it follows that the > situation ain't broke, right?" Hi Richard. I liked your idea of a making list of things blmler's should avoid. This is probably one of them. Suppose a blmler thinks that an incorrection assumption has been made. Instead, of just saying there was an incorrect assumption, I would suggest that the blmler, at the very least, identify the incorrect assumption. Otherwise, it is more like name-calling than rational discussion. IMO. Here, you allege that I have affirmed the consequent. But I can't find that. To affirm the consequent, there has to be some claim of the form if A then B. I can't find that either. How can I learn from your comments if I cannot find the problem? And worse, why should anyone just trust you that the problem exists? Perhaps I am just too close to the situation to see it. So could you find me the 'If A then B' statement I made, from which I then showed B and concluded A? Thanks. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 12 01:07:22 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:07:22 +1100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 2001, Round of Eight, First Quarter Board 3 Dlr: South Vul: East-West You, East, hold: QJ3 AQT9 AQ2 Q94 The bidding has gone: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Chip Martel Bob Hamman Lew Stansby Paul Soloway Pass 1S (1) Pass ? (2) (1) Frequently as few as four spades. (2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: (a) A semi-artificial 2C response always shows four-plus clubs in a game-forcing hand unless responder has a three-card limit raise in spades. It also allows responder to find out if opener is minimum (opener rebids an artificial 2D) after which responder can give up on slam by signing off in 3NT. But 3NT systemically implies real clubs; and furthermore, (b) A direct 2NT response shows a balanced hand in either the 12-16 or 19-20 HCP range; so, (c) With this black hole in your explicitly agreed system: What doubtful call do you make? What other doubtful calls do you consider making? Jerry Fusselman: Are we playing bridge? Ever hear of adjustments? That 17-HCP hand is worth less than 16 (I would guess it is about 15.7) points due to terrible shape and so many quacks. There is no problem. Bid 2NT, for the potential of your hand is in that range. Richard Hills: An unprejudiced observer might guess that the late Paul Soloway -- -- winner of five Bermuda Bowls -- did play bridge, including correct evaluations of the strength of his hand. Edgar Kaplan's CCCC hand evaluation method would give due weight to the quality of the heart suit, with T9 of hearts supported by two higher honours. Tony Musgrove: 2C, wtp Tony (Sydney) (winner of at least 1 previous bidding competition) Richard Hills: Yes, Tony again wins a bidding competition. The bidding continued: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Chip Martel Bob Hamman Lew Stansby Paul Soloway Pass 1S (1) Pass 2C (2) Pass 2D (3) Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass (4) (3) Artificial, showing any minimum. (4) Played behind screens. Before selecting his opening lead, Chip Martel asked Bob Hamman (in writing) about the meaning of 2C followed by 3NT. Bob Hamman wrote: "17-18 hcp w/clubs." Chip Martel held: 92 J2 8765 AJ832 and elected to lead the nine of spades. But only a low club opening lead defeats the contract, since Lew Stansby's clubs were KT65. Jerry Fusselman: Why would they make a range with an explicit gap and then not address the gap? Harald Skj?ran: Before embarking on bidding, I'd like to know more about our agreements. Richard Hills: The decades-long partnership of Bob Hamman and Bobby Wolff had well- oiled agreements, playing the Orange Club system (a variant of the system which was once second best in the world, Blue Club). But when Bobby Wolff was ejected from the professional Nickell team, the sponsor not only hired Paul Soloway as the replacement, but also hired a coach to design the Hamman-Soloway bidding system. So initially Hamman and Soloway did not know about the explicit gap in their bidding system, and would have liked to know more about their agreements. :-) However, in an earlier match Soloway became aware of the hole (that time Soloway chose the Fusselman downgrade of a 2NT response to 1S when holding a balanced 17 hcp and three clubs). But Hamman was blissfully oblivious to the hole, due to again being dummy in that earlier match, and due to Soloway failing to call it to Hamman's attention after the earlier match. Since a unilateral pre-existing awareness of _one_ partner is not a mutual pre-existing understanding of _both_ partners, did Hamman give misinformation to Martel? Alternatively, did Soloway's failure (after the conclusion of the earlier match) to announce, "Hail, Hamman -- homework hole!" mean that Soloway had infracted the Law 74B1 criterion to avoid "paying insufficient attention to the game"? Denis Healey, Chancellor of the Exchequer 1974-1979: "Healey's first law of politics: when you're in a hole, stop digging." 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 Mar 12 01:35:05 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 00:35:05 -0000 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9a2aa$63fd6260$2bf82720$@com> [RF] Same thing when I try to figure out what [would have] happened had the irregularity occurred. IT DID OCCUR! [DALB] I have been following this only dimly, but it seems to me that Robert may be a trifle confused as to cause and effect. When X happens, this causes - and is not the effect of - the fact that X was always going to happen. David Burn London, England From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 12 02:10:05 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:10:05 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, "Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington: Understanding Political Doublespeak Through Philosophy and Jokes", example of Affirming the Consequent fallacy on page 174: "There's an old saying, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' Well, we haven't regulated flamethrowers heretofore, so it follows that the situation ain't broke, right?" Robert Frick: >Hi Richard. I liked your idea of a making list of things blmler's >should avoid. This is probably one of them. Suppose a blmler thinks >that an incorrect assumption has been made. Instead, of just saying >there was an incorrect assumption, I would suggest that the blmler, >at the very least, identify the incorrect assumption. Richard Hills: Good point. I have now identified what I believe to be Robert's incorrect assumption in the parallel "French correction" thread. Robert Frick: >Otherwise, it is more like name-calling than rational discussion. >IMO. > >Here, you allege that I have affirmed the consequent. But I can't >find that. Richard Hills: Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa. Further research has revealed to me that Affirming the Consequent is a logically fallacious syllogism of the form: (a) If P, then Q (b) Q (c) Therefore P Robert did not Affirm the Consequent; I stupidly misunderstood the above Cathcart/Klein example, thus thought that ATC meant, "If Q has happened, then Q should/would always happen in the same situation". Leslie Lever (1905-1977), British Labour politician: "Generosity is part of my character, and I therefore hasten to assure this Government that I will never make an allegation of dishonesty against it whenever a simple explanation of stupidity will suffice." 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 Mar 12 03:48:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:48:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9a2aa$63fd6260$2bf82720$@com> References: <000001c9a2aa$63fd6260$2bf82720$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:35:05 -0500, David Burn wrote: > [RF] > > Same thing when I try to figure out what [would have] happened had the > irregularity occurred. IT DID OCCUR! > > [DALB] > > I have been following this only dimly, but it seems to me that Robert > may be > a trifle confused as to cause and effect. > > When X happens, this causes - and is not the effect of - the fact that X > was > always going to happen. > > David Burn > London, England [RF] I can't imagine this discussion being anything but tedious. But it is not about cause and effect. Suppose we want to know what East would have done in this situation W N E S 1S P 2S HP P 3H ? And we know in fact what East actually did. W N E S 1S P 2S HP P 3H 3S Given the evidence, it is exceedingly logical to conclude that East would have bid 3S, had East been in exactly the same situation East was actually in. You can assign probability to this, just as you can calculate the probability that the third digit of pi is 2 or the probability that it rained yesterday or the probability that 5 is prime. These probabilities are just suboptimal, given the available knowledge. And in every other situation, directors seemed to find it imperative to use their information in the optimal way and would never use suboptimal probabilities. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 12 04:11:11 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:11:11 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "These probabilities are just suboptimal, given the available knowledge." Really? Matchpoint pairs, where trying for the kiss-of-death +200 trumps the imps advice of, "Never double for one off." WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S Pass(1) 2S 3H (2) Call(3) Pass Pass Pass (1) Break in tempo. 4333 with four spades, wants to overcall 1NT but lacks spade stopper, and takeout double too risky. (2) Later determined to be Law 16 illegal; the only Law 16 legal call South could have made would have been Pass. (3) (a) If South had chosen Pass, then Pass by West is the 100% logical alternative. Result East-West +110. (b) After South chose 3H, then 3S by West is a 50% logical alternative. Result East-West -50. (c) After South chose 3H, then Double by West is a 50% logical alternative. Result East-West +200. In Universe X, West tosses a coin, it comes down heads, so West doubles. +200 to East-West means that the Director is not summoned, since East-West are not damaged by South's infraction (note that North has not infracted, since "bridge is a thinking game"). In Universe Y, West tosses a coin, it comes down tails, so West bids 3S. -50 to East-West means that the Director is summoned, since East-West were damaged by South's infraction (note that North has not infracted, since "bridge is a thinking game"). In a Universe Y where the players are governed by a non-ACBL Regulating Authority which has fully adopted Law 12C1(e), the Director is required to award a split score of +110 to East- West and -200 to North-South. In both Universe X and Universe Y the Director should apply a procedural penalty to West for tossing the coin, which is an infraction of Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." 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 Mar 12 05:47:12 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:47:12 -0500 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:11:11 -0500, wrote: > "These probabilities are just suboptimal, given the available > knowledge." > > Really? > > Matchpoint pairs, where trying for the kiss-of-death +200 > trumps the imps advice of, "Never double for one off." > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1S Pass(1) 2S 3H (2) > Call(3) Pass Pass Pass > > (1) Break in tempo. 4333 with four spades, wants to overcall > 1NT but lacks spade stopper, and takeout double too risky. > > (2) Later determined to be Law 16 illegal; the only Law 16 > legal call South could have made would have been Pass. > > (3) (a) If South had chosen Pass, then Pass by West is the > 100% logical alternative. Result East-West +110. > > (b) After South chose 3H, then 3S by West is a 50% > logical alternative. Result East-West -50. > > (c) After South chose 3H, then Double by West is a 50% > logical alternative. Result East-West +200. > > In Universe X, West tosses a coin, it comes down heads, so > West doubles. +200 to East-West means that the Director is not > summoned, since East-West are not damaged by South's infraction > (note that North has not infracted, since "bridge is a thinking > game"). > > In Universe Y, West tosses a coin, it comes down tails, so > West bids 3S. -50 to East-West means that the Director is > summoned, since East-West were damaged by South's infraction > (note that North has not infracted, since "bridge is a thinking > game"). > > In a Universe Y where the players are governed by a non-ACBL > Regulating Authority which has fully adopted Law 12C1(e), the > Director is required to award a split score of +110 to East- > West and -200 to North-South. > > In both Universe X and Universe Y the Director should apply a > procedural penalty to West for tossing the coin, which is an > infraction of Law 40C3(a): > > "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not > entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to > his memory, calculation or technique." Nice, Richard. I like it. You have a technical problem that you are calculating probabilities differently from how Grattan suggested. There is a problem that players don't flip coins. If they use some randomizing device, we have only their word for that. And haven't you ever flipped a coin, not liked the outcome, and went for 2 out of 3? Maybe the coin flip really occurred, but the only reason the player accepted it was that they liked it. Finally, why does the OS only get +110? Wasn't there any chance of making 3 on the hand? Or do you calculate probabilities only for the bidding? I think you can maybe solve those problems. The one I think will give you the most difficulty is this: If there was a coin flip during the play of the hand, does that influence the scores you award with L12C1c? Are you going to give them half +110 and half +140 if the coin flip came out wrong (and that is why they went down 1)? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 12 07:06:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:06:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] The French correction [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sven Pran: >>I have a feeling that this thread is about to become ridiculous. Robert Frick: >The law [70D3] says "may". Suppose someone claims, then in the >subsequent play blocks a suit. Suppose also that I would not >consider this foolish play to be normal. Instead of granting the >claim and postulating better play than actually occurred, I >would accept the play that did occur. Richard Hills: The Unlucky Expert occasionally plays too quickly when choosing a spade, diamond or club card, so she occasionally blocks her spade, diamond or club suits. But the Unlucky Expert has also been unlucky in love, therefore she slowly and mournfully plays heart cards (due to her broken heart), so the Unlucky Expert has never blocked her heart suit. The Unlucky Expert claims, announcing: "I have nothing but winners, and I will carefully unblock my easily blockable heart suit." The Belgian opponents insist that the Unlucky Expert plays on. Since this Maastricht knock-out teams is the Unlucky Expert's first Duplicate Bridge event -- she usually plays Contract (Rubber) Bridge in London, where the Laws do permit playing on after a claim -- the Unlucky Expert acquiesces in her Belgian opponents' request to play on. Alas, the Unlucky Expert is so irritated by her obtuse Belgian opponents' request that for the very first time she temporarily forgets her lost love, plays too quickly, and blocks her heart suit. Heart-broken, the Unlucky Expert then drops her heart cards on the floor, and they too break. What Law 70D3 ruling do you make? What Law 99A2 ruling 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 ziffbridge at t-online.de Thu Mar 12 09:11:34 2009 From: ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:11:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] ridiculosities In-Reply-To: <49B7D43B.9080607@ulb.ac.be> References: <49B7D43B.9080607@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49B8C3B6.90505@t-online.de> Yesterday at the club.... Round 5 At trick 11 declarer discovers that only 1 card is left in her hand, one defender has cards left. Director! No problem, result thrown out, traveller inspected to fix board. Hmmm, 11 and 15 cards written down.... Sit-out pair had shuffled, no less than 2 tables (Howell movement) played it that way. "I claimed, dummy was high!" Sigh.... Some years ago: Director! I went to the table and saw the following auction: 1C - 1H - 1S - 2H p - p - 2S - p 2NT- p - p - p p - p - ? "What is the problem, please?" "Opener has huddled at his 4th (!!) turn to speak, and now responder thinks about bidding again! I think he should be barred from bidding!!" Best regards Matthias From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 12 09:54:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:54:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction References: <49B591E5.9010904@aol.com><200903092244.AA18342@geller204.nifty.com><4B08D01B77174AA789A97CD8A7113399@MARVLAPTOP><000101c9a116$caaba9d0$6002fd70$@no><4F0590533BF847EC8F4460BE2119416F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <003701c9a2f2$543737a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 12:06 PM Subject: Re: [blml] French version of 2007 Laws - correction > > The plural also doesn't work. < +=+ 'Introduction to the 2007 Lawsof Duplicate Bridge': "..... unless the context clearly dictates otherwise, the singular includes the plural and ...... " +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 12 10:08:04 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:08:04 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49B77540.5000308@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <003801c9a2f2$54779c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> Am I in that many kill-files? There was only one response to my "nice one", and I believe it is in error. Peter Eidt wrote: > First of all dummy had 2 spades and declarer had 3, > otherwise no sense ... > Indeed, sorry. > Then Law 71 A2: > "A concession must stand, once made, except that > within the Correction Period established under Law 79C > the Director shall cancel a concession: > 1. [...] > 2. 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." > Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will play it, even if it is not "really" there. > So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any > normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff > one spade, declarer might get his trick back. > A judgemental decision of the TD. > I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses > to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. > But it is normal to play the spade that is not "really" there, creating a defective trick, which will be corrected afterwards by inserting some legal card - for example one of the side winners. I think the claim should stand as said (two "spade" tricks to opponents). > Peter > > From: Herman De Wael >> Declarer is in a heart contract, and he has 3 small spades on the >> table for 2 in his hand. They are played once, but dummy forgets to >> turn over a spade. >> So a bit later, declarer notices two spade losers and claims conceding >> two spade tricks. >> Only then does he discover that there should have been only one spade >> on the table. >> Can he get his trick back? (suppose the TD is called before the next >> hand begins). > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 12 10:44:53 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:44:53 -0000 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <00e201c9a2f7$3402f280$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 4:47 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> > I think you can maybe solve those problems. The one I think will give you > the most difficulty is this: If there was a coin flip during the play of > the hand, does that influence the scores you award with L12C1c? Are you > going to give them half +110 and half +140 if the coin flip came out wrong > (and that is why they went down 1)? > +=+ It is a common belief that at the point when a coin is flipped it will land 50% of the time on the obverse and 50% of the time on the reverse side. [Although this does not apply when I am calling its fall:-)] Perhaps readers would like to compare this with the situation when, having ruled a call illegal, the Director rolls the auction back to the instant immediately prior to that call and considers the probabilities of subsequent actions among an infinite number of players of like ability. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 12 10:53:29 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:53:29 +0100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0903110844j16734f7au82f9e5763674f46c@mail.gmail.com> References: <2b1e598b0903110844j16734f7au82f9e5763674f46c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49B8DB99.5010109@ulb.ac.be> Jerry Fusselman a ?crit : > On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:40 AM, wrote: > > >> You, East, hold: >> >> QJ3 >> AQT9 >> AQ2 >> Q94 >> >> The bidding has gone: >> >> SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST >> Chip Martel Bob Hamman Lew Stansby Paul Soloway >> Pass 1S (1) Pass ? (2) >> >> (1) Frequently as few as four spades. >> >> (2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: >> >> (a) A semi-artificial 2C response always shows four-plus clubs in >> a game-forcing hand unless responder has a three-card limit raise >> in spades. It also allows responder to find out if opener is minimum >> (opener rebids an artificial 2D) after which responder can give up >> on slam by signing off in 3NT. But 3NT systemically implies real >> clubs; and furthermore, >> >> (b) A direct 2NT response shows a balanced hand in either the 12-16 >> or 19-20 HCP range; so, >> >> (c) With this black hole in your explicitly agreed system: >> >> What doubtful call do you make? >> What other doubtful calls do you consider making? >> >> AG : assuming your hand is too strong for the lower range of 2NT, which isn't obvious, you probably need 3NT as a 3-card 16-18 raise. Without this, I'd either bid 2NT nevertheless and warn partner that "this creates a new partnership agreement", or a natural 2H. The advantage of 2H is that partner's 2NT rebid would show a balanced 12-14 (no problem anymiore) while 3m would show a 5-card suit. In this specific case, natural rebids are better than artificial ones. I think 2H is superior. I suppose partner will understand 1S-2H-3H-3NT. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 12 11:02:11 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:02:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49B8DDA3.80704@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Vanderbilt KO Teams, 22 March 2001, Round of Eight, First Quarter > Board 3 > Dlr: South > Vul: East-West > > You, East, hold: > > QJ3 > AQT9 > AQ2 > Q94 > > The bidding has gone: > > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Chip Martel Bob Hamman Lew Stansby Paul Soloway > Pass 1S (1) Pass ? (2) > > (1) Frequently as few as four spades. > > (2) In your highly detailed explicit partnership understanding: > > However, in an earlier match Soloway became aware of the hole (that > time Soloway chose the Fusselman downgrade of a 2NT response to 1S > when holding a balanced 17 hcp and three clubs). But Hamman was > blissfully oblivious to the hole, due to again being dummy in that > earlier match, and due to Soloway failing to call it to Hamman's > attention after the earlier match. > > Since a unilateral pre-existing awareness of _one_ partner is not a > mutual pre-existing understanding of _both_ partners, did Hamman > give misinformation to Martel? > > AG : please notice I gave my response, which included ' I'd warn partner of the new agreement' , before ever hearing about this case. No, there wasn't any agreement at this point, but the case of two experts agreeing to a complex system without even a hint of a hole is rather eccentric and I would seldom accept this as an explanation. And, as Soloway, I'd offer an explanation of the 'hole situation' before the lead, which might prompt a check for correct explanation on the other side. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 12 11:07:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:07:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> Message-ID: <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the > thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will play > it, even if it is not "really" there. > >> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >> A judgemental decision of the TD. >> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 12 11:57:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:57:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) - postscript Message-ID: <00f001c9a301$4beda4d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott>> > +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be > relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: > ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not > to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ +=+ After sending the above I had a further thought. Under Law 46 nomination in a claim of a card that is not present in dummy is an irregularity. It is a violation of Law 46 (and see 46B4). Whether it constitutes a revoke - see 64B3 - is an interesting question: potentially it is not an established revoke because of 46B4. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 12 12:32:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:32:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49B8F2BE.6020508@skynet.be> Hello Grattan, Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > >> Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the >> thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will play >> it, even if it is not "really" there. >> >>> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >>> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >>> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >>> A judgemental decision of the TD. >>> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >>> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >>> > +=+ I have not studied the case. It contains a surplus card in dummy, which declarer considers a loser and concedes to the opponents. Does he get it back? > However, should it be > relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: > ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not > to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This minute is valid for cases such as a player saying he will ruff the third round of spades, when there happens to be a third spade in the hand that he wants to ruff from. It is impossible not to notice that third spade once the trick is there, so it is not considered normal to actually ruff the trick. This one is different, though. At the point in question, declarer still has a (physical) spade in dummy, even if not a (actual) spade. It is certainly possible to play the physical spade, and thus to create the irregularity which the minute does not accept. Did the WBFLC consider this when issueing the minute above? > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 12 12:39:30 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:39:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) - postscript In-Reply-To: <00f001c9a301$4beda4d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <00f001c9a301$4beda4d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49B8F472.7010801@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be >> relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: >> ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is >> an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director >> follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity >> (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not >> to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were >> no statement of claim but should take into account any later >> part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > +=+ After sending the above I had a further thought. > Under Law 46 nomination in a claim of a card that is not > present in dummy is an irregularity. It is a violation of Law 46 > (and see 46B4). Whether it constitutes a revoke - see 64B3 - > is an interesting question: potentially it is not an established > revoke because of 46B4. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Let's consider the case without a claim. Let's say declarer plays a spade to defenders, who cash another one (they too see the surplus card in dummy). Declarer nominates that card, and it is turned over. The next trick begins and it does not matter what happens after that. Declarer has nominated a card that was present on the table but not actually present in dummy's hand (it was a foreign object). It does not really matter whether L46B4 applies to this case or not, since the law states that a new card has to be nominated, and this has not happened, since no-one saw the irregularity. Is Grattan saying that in such a case, declarer is allowed to nominate a card afterwards, and that L64B4 precedes and invalidates L67B1? I don't think that is what the Lawmakers intended. The case is similar to a case where a declarer, holding only 12 cards, claims, stating he will ruff a trick that he actually has a 13th card from. How do we solve that claim? Certainly by holding claimer to his statement, and ruling subsequently on a claim. Otherwise, the claiming player has an advantage over the one who plays the cards out. Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 12 14:31:26 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:31:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped In-Reply-To: <003801c9a2f2$54779c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49B77540.5000308@jldata.fi> <003801c9a2f2$54779c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:08:04 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lapinjatka > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:24 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped > > > Robert Frick wrote: > (snip) > Argh, you are getting me to discuss theory of probability. Isn't there > some internet rule that the first person to talk about theory of > probability automatically loses the argument? > > Hahah. > Bruno de Finetti was especially fond of the aphorism:- > Probability does not exist > > Juuso > > +=+ Mr Frick is unaware of my career and speciality in a major branch > of the gaming and gambling industry lasting over 30 years. As has been > officially defined on various occasions the 'probablitiy' referred to in > the > Law 12C1(e)(ii) is a pure probability in an infinite field of players of > like > quality. I am not inclined to argue the matter with him further. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The gaming industry does not allow people to place events on past events. Which is what we are arguing about. By your calculations, Napolean had a reasonable chance of winning the battle of Waterloo. I think you will go out of business very quickly if you let people place bets on that event. (If you want to argue with the example, by your method the defeat of the Spanish Armada was unlikely.) If the gaming industry was forced to allow bets on past events, they would without a shadow of a doubt use my methods -- p(Naplolean loses battle of Waterloo) = 1.0. If you want to drop out of the discussion, fine. But promise me you won't propose your current ideas in Seoul. If you apply your definition of probability, then, AFAIK, you are suggesting that everyone has been calculating probabilities wrong, even for L12C1c! AGAIN, when the contract was 3S, and the director wants to know "probabilities" for the contract of 2S, the director NEVER (AFAIK) asks or answers the question of what players of like ability would have done in 2S. Instead, the director uses the results in 3S. (Or when there is some reason to suspect that the play would have been different in 2S, the director bases the decision on that changed course of play). Bob Frick, who has two major publications related to philosophy of probabilities but would much rather let reasoning and evidence be the only deciding factor in any discussion. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 12 15:33:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:33:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49B77540.5000308@jldata.fi><003801c9a2f2$54779c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002201c9a31f$94a14380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:31 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped > If you want to drop out of the discussion, fine. But promise me you won't > propose your current ideas in Seoul. If you apply your definition of > probability, then, AFAIK, you are suggesting that everyone has been > calculating probabilities wrong, > +=+ I have two communications from leading Zone 2 Directors who indicate they agree that what I have said is in keeping with what has been their understanding and practice. . If, by 'Seoul', you mean Sao Paulo (Brazil) then there are two pieces of news for you. In WBF championships Law 12C1(c) applies - (e) does not apply - and the assessment of probabilities is by reference to what may be expected among an infinity of players of like class; second, as to any committee deliberations there I already have expressions of agreement from committee colleagues - plus the continued validity of the minute quoted earlier in this topic. +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 12 23:17:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:17:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's self-deprecating humour) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> Message-ID: Mike Amos, self-deprecating humour: [snip] >>(At least we played clockwise unlike some other beginners I've >>heard of. That's one of those trick questions for trainee directors >>- where in the Law Book does it say that play should be clockwise?) Richard Hills: A nice one. Law 17C says that _calls_ should be made "in a clockwise rotation", but Law 44B says that _plays_ should be made "in turn". Mike Amos, self-deprecating humour: >>We played in a Schools Cup heat and would have qualified for the >>final if I'd remembered to draw the last trump in a game contract. >>(So began one of my lifelong claims to fame as the player who has >>gone off in more "cold" vulnerable games than any other - I think >>Victor Mollo was right when he advocated Monster Points rather than >>Master points. I'd be a Grand Monster 3 times over by now.) [snip] >>In everything I do connected with bridge I have great fun (Yes even >>the Laws & Ethics Committee) and would like to pass this on. Herman De Wael, self-deprecating humour: >>Although I'm very fanatic about it, and very serious, as a Bridge >>player, I do not amount to all that much. >> >>To illustrate this I have for some time now collected my worst hands >>in a special column for the magazine (Squeeze Info) that my club >>(The Royal Squeeze Bridge Club in Antwerp, Belgium) edits >>periodically. In it, I ask the normal question, 'How did (fill in >>the name) play to win this contract'. Only in my case win is usually >>changed to fail. Herman De Wael asked: >Am I in that many kill-files? Richard Hills: Neither Mike Amos nor Herman De Wael are in my kill-files, since I am always on the lookout for a new item of self-deprecating humour. Richard Hills, 2003 ironically excessive self-praise (now obsolete): >>Richard Hills: >>I know Symmetric Relay, English Acol, and the Ghestem pox; >>In my comment'ry on casebooks I've a pretty taste for paradox, >>I quote in elegiacs all revokes of Heliogabalus, >>When claiming I can state peculiarities parabolous; >>I can tell undoubted squeezes from pseudo-squeeze epiphanies, >>I know the croaking chorus from the Frogs of Aristophanes! >>Then I can hum a ruling of which I've heard the players panic for, >>And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law. >> >>Chorus: >>And whistle all the airs from that infernal book Kaplanic Law, >>While waiting for the airs from that infernal book Grattanic Law >>Next year the airs from that infernal book Grattaaaaaaaanic Law. >> >>Richard Hills: >>Then I can write on appeal forms in Babylonic cuneiform, >>And cite the inconsistencies of exegeses scarce uniform: >>In short, in casebook comment'ry, and as proof-reading editor, >>I am the very model of a modern bridge competitor. 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 Fri Mar 13 02:01:31 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:01:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped In-Reply-To: <002201c9a31f$94a14380$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49B77540.5000308@jldata.fi> <003801c9a2f2$54779c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002201c9a31f$94a14380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:33:56 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:31 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped > > >> If you want to drop out of the discussion, fine. But promise me you >> won't >> propose your current ideas in Seoul. If you apply your definition of >> probability, then, AFAIK, you are suggesting that everyone has been >> calculating probabilities wrong, >> > +=+ I have two communications from leading Zone 2 Directors > who indicate they agree that what I have said is in keeping with > what has been their understanding and practice. . If, by 'Seoul', > you mean Sao Paulo (Brazil) then there are two pieces of news > for you. In WBF championships Law 12C1(c) applies - (e) does > not apply - and the assessment of probabilities is by reference to > what may be expected among an infinity of players of like class; > second, as to any committee deliberations there I already have > expressions of agreement from committee colleagues - plus the > continued validity of the minute quoted earlier in this topic. +=+ I did not know there was a relevant minute on this issue. The auction is 1H P 2H P 3H HP P 3S 4H P P P The 3S was ruled illegal -- pass was a logical alternative. 3S would have made and 4H went down one. Now we have to decide what would have happened in 3H. It turns on there are two Richardian coin flips in the play of the hand, and for players of almost any ability, 1/4 make 7 tricks in hearts, 1/2 make 8 tricks, and 1/4 make nine tricks. (Our declarer happened to guess right twice.) 1. What is the standard ruling under L12C1c? 2. If your ruling is not a weighted average of 1/4 -200, 1/2 -100, and 1/4 +110, how do you justify your ruling? Assuming that "probabilities" in L12C1c is interpreted as being the likelihood of what might be expected from players of like ability, which has already been given as p(-200) = 1/4, p(-100) = 1/2, and p(+110) = 1/4. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 13 01:15:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:15:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Wikipedia: Retrospective determinism is the logical fallacy that because something happened, it was therefore bound to happen; the term was coined by the French philosopher Henri Bergson. For example: When he declared himself dictator of the Roman Republic, Julius Caesar was bound to be assassinated. This argument gives no logical grounds to conclude Caesar's assassination was the only possible outcome, or even the most likely outcome of the circumstances. Simply asserting this is committing the fallacy of retrospective determinism. This type of fallacy is often used as a build- up to a hasty generalisation: because something happened in given circumstances, it was not only bound to happen, but will in fact always happen given those circumstances. For example: Caesar was assassinated when he declared himself dictator. Sic semper tyrannis: this goes to show that all dictators will eventually be assassinated. This not only does not follow on logical grounds, but is false: a dictator may be murdered by a political rival, killed in a war with a foreign power, or simply die by accident or natural causes. Discounting these possibilities, it still does not follow that any dictator, if they lived long enough, would be assassinated because Caesar was assassinated. While the conclusion is correct, the premise is faulty. Caesar's assassination does not predict the inevitable assassination of all other dictators. Robert Frick argued by analogy: >By your calculations, Napoleon had a reasonable chance of winning >the battle of Waterloo. Richard Hills extends the analogy: Yes, indeed he might have. Robert's analogy comparing the battle of Waterloo to the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook is incomplete. Let me complete it. In 1816 the Director is summoned to Napoleon's table in Saint Helena, after Napoleon had lost the battle of Waterloo in 1815. Napoleon complained that the Duke of Wellington infracted the Duplicate War Lawbook during the Peninsular War, at the Battle of Salamanca in 1812. Wellington had won with a series of oblique order strokes, violating Duplicate War Law 40B2(d): "The Regulating Authority may restrict the use of psychic oblique manoeuvres." The Director ruled that Napoleon's complaint was justified, so consequently ruled that it was at all probable that Napoleon's team-mate, Marshal Auguste Marmont, had won the Battle of Salamanca in 1812. The Director also ruled that it was at all probable that the Duke of Wellington (now deemed to be the at all probable loser of the Battle of Salamanca) would be exiled to become Governor of New South Wales in 1813. The Director ruled that it was at all probable that the loss of an able commander in the Iron Duke would mean that the ramshackle coalition would no longer be able to depose Napoleon in 1814, so it was at all probable that Napoleon would no longer need to say, "Able was I ere I saw Elba," thus there would no longer be The At All Probable Hundred Days, therefore Napoleon would no longer have the at all probable need to fight the at all improbable battle of Waterloo. I think that Robert would agree that even Napoleon cannot lose a battle which is never fought. But now the Director broke the bad news to Napoleon. The non-offending empire is awarded the "likely" score, not the "at all probable" score, so Napoleon would remain in exile in Saint Helena. However, the Director assured Napoleon that regime-change would be enforced upon the offending British and French empires at the end of the session, in 1830. 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 Fri Mar 13 02:57:09 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:57:09 -0500 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > >> >> Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the >> thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will play >> it, even if it is not "really" there. >> >>> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >>> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >>> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >>> A judgemental decision of the TD. >>> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >>> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >>> > +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be > relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: > ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not > to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This denies the defense the opportunity to accept a lead from the wrong hand. Declarer claimed, saying he would pitch small hearts from dummy on his good spades. Unbeknownst to him, hearts were trump. The ruling was that he would be woken up to the fact that hearts were trump when he was told that he won the trick in dummy. He would then know to draw trumps and hence would make the rest of the tricks anyway. From swillner at nhcc.net Fri Mar 13 02:25:37 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:25:37 -0500 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped In-Reply-To: <200903121515.n2CFFEFX001998@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200903121515.n2CFFEFX001998@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49B9B611.8060405@nhcc.net> From: "Grattan" > As has been officially defined on various occasions the 'probablitiy' > referred to in the Law 12C1(e)(ii) is a pure probability > in an infinite field of players of like quality. That last line answers the question Adam asked in the first place. I confess I've never seen it "officially defined" anywhere, though it was what I expected. Apparently Adam had never seen an official statement either. The answer raises some subsidiary questions, but it solves the major issue. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 02:11:00 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:11:00 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's self-deprecating humour)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <001401c9a37b$01c0fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 10:17 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's self-deprecating humour)[SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Mike Amos, self-deprecating humour: > > [snip] > >>>(At least we played clockwise unlike some other beginners I've >>>heard of. That's one of those trick questions for trainee directors >>>- where in the Law Book does it say that play should be clockwise?) > +=+ Definitions. See 'Rotation'. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 02:28:24 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:28:24 -0000 Subject: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped References: <003d01c9a120$d765acc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49B77540.5000308@jldata.fi><003801c9a2f2$54779c00$0302a8c0@Mildred><002201c9a31f$94a14380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001501c9a37b$0203acf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 09:33:56 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Out of the question to meddle with >> the Auvergne" >> [ Junior Minister comments on the >> Balladur proposals to redraw the >> political map of France.] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:31 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Fw: Enthymeme part 2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] - retyped >> > > I did not know there was a relevant minute on this issue. > +=+ It seems you have not read the post in question. It concerned a rebuttal of the suggestion by Adam Wildavsky concerning the addition of words to the subsection of law in question. The rebuttal was to confirm the intended difference of treatment between the offenders and the non-offenders. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 02:38:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:38:38 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Out of the question to meddle with >> the Auvergne" >> [ Junior Minister comments on the >> Balladur proposals to redraw the >> political map of France.] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Herman De Wael" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >> >> >>> >>> Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the >>> thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will play >>> it, even if it is not "really" there. >>> >>>> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >>>> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >>>> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >>>> A judgemental decision of the TD. >>>> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >>>> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >>>> >> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be >> relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: >> ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is >> an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director >> follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity >> (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not >> to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were >> no statement of claim but should take into account any later >> part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > This denies the defense the opportunity to accept a lead from the wrong > hand. > > Declarer claimed, saying he would pitch small hearts from dummy on his > good spades. Unbeknownst to him, hearts were trump. The ruling was that he > would be woken up to the fact that hearts were trump when he was told that > he won the trick in dummy. He would then know to draw trumps and hence > would make the rest of the tricks anyway. > +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 13 04:29:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:29:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's self-deprecating humour) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001401c9a37b$01c0fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: The Economist, May 5th 2009: [snip] What is true for reviews does not appear to apply to comments left on news stories or blogs, however. "You can probably have a decent discussion until you get to about 350 comments," says Markos Moulitsas, the founder of Daily Kos, a popular left-leaning political site. But after that, he says, "most outside people will stay away from the thread, and further growth will come from people already inside that thread carrying forth a discussion, debate, or argument." Such discussion threads are more of a conversation, and the page they inhabit usually has a limited lifespan during which people continue to post - unlike the Amazon pages for the "Harry Potter" books, which continue to attract reviews even today, years after the books' publication. Mike Amos, self-deprecating humour: [snip] >>(At least we played clockwise unlike some other beginners I've >>heard of. That's one of those trick questions for trainee directors >>- where in the Law Book does it say that play should be clockwise?) Grattan Endicott: >+=+ Definitions. See 'Rotation'. +=+ Richard Hills, self-deprecating pluperfect pedantic pickiness: But Law 44B refers to play "in turn", not play "in rotation". Not to worry, there is also a Definition of "Turn": "Turn - the correct time at which a player is due to call or play." Oops, still no mention of "rotation" or "clockwise". Let us continue down the rabbit hole by looking at the Definition of "Play": "Play - 1. The contribution of a card from one's hand to a trick, including the first card, which is the lead...." Oops, still no mention of "rotation" or "clockwise". Let us continue down the rabbit hole by looking at the Definition of "Trick": "Trick - the unit by which the outcome of the contract is determined, composed unless flawed of four cards, one contributed by each player in rotation, beginning with the lead." Aha! There is light at the end of the rabbit hole. Let us continue down the rabbit hole by looking at the Definition of "Rotation": "Rotation - the clockwise progression of the normal turns to call or play....." Ta Dah!!! On the other hand, self-taught bunny beginners might find it easier to work out that card play is in clockwise rotation if the Law 44B over-succinct phrase "in turn" had been replaced by a copy-and-paste of the Law 17C expanded phrase "in turn in a clockwise rotation". 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 Fri Mar 13 06:34:03 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:34:03 -0500 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:38:38 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "Out of the question to meddle with >>> the Auvergne" >>> [ Junior Minister comments on the >>> Balladur proposals to redraw the >>> political map of France.] >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the >>>> thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will >>>> play >>>> it, even if it is not "really" there. >>>> >>>>> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >>>>> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >>>>> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >>>>> A judgemental decision of the TD. >>>>> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >>>>> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >>>>> >>> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be >>> relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: >>> ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is >>> an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director >>> follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity >>> (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not >>> to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were >>> no statement of claim but should take into account any later >>> part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> This denies the defense the opportunity to accept a lead from the wrong >> hand. >> >> Declarer claimed, saying he would pitch small hearts from dummy on his >> good spades. Unbeknownst to him, hearts were trump. The ruling was that >> he >> would be woken up to the fact that hearts were trump when he was told >> that >> he won the trick in dummy. He would then know to draw trumps and hence >> would make the rest of the tricks anyway. >> > +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained > in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ Hearts were trump and he knew the opponents had hearts. He just didn't know hearts were trump. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 13 06:06:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:06:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Everything's up to doubt in Kansas City [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49B8DDA3.80704@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Richard Hills: >>Since a unilateral pre-existing awareness of _one_ partner is not a >>mutual pre-existing understanding of _both_ partners, did Hamman >>give misinformation to Martel? Alain Gottcheiner: >No, there wasn't any agreement at this point, The Facts, 2001 Kansas City casebook: >>>.....The Director ruled there had been no MI..... The Committee Decision, 2001 Kansas City casebook: >>>The Committee believed that this East's hand fell in a hole in >>>E/W?s system and that the explanation given, while well-intended, >>>was incomplete and potentially misleading..... Richard Hills: When partner psyches or misbids, a well-intended description of the system meaning for partner's psyche or misbid is incomplete and potentially misleading -- but Lawful. On the other hand, even then ACBL regulation stated that an enquiry about a call should prompt disclosure of all relevant information. If Bob Hamman had provided all relevant information about his system to Chip Martel, then Chip may well have been able to "a priori" find the hole in the Hamman-Soloway system. Sure Soloway only discovered the hole "a posteriori", and Hamman was blissfully oblivious throughout, but Chip Martel is one cluey customer. This has echoes of the Kaplan Question threads of a few years ago, when cluey customer Edgar Kaplan knew more about holes in the Blue Team bidding systems than the Blue Teamsters did themselves. 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 Mar 13 07:01:26 2009 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:01:26 -0500 Subject: [blml] Law 12C1(e)(ii) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, wrote: > Grattan Endicott (6th March 2009): > > +=+ The Director must form an opinion as to what results may > potentially occur. He is then to judge in each case what is the > probability of its occurring. He is entitled to a little help from > his friends. > In 12C1(d) he is given succour if he can conceive of too > many potential outcomes. I have seen various guidance as to a > level at which the mind is too stretched. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills (14th February 2007): > > >A better example would be the vul non-offending side bidding to > >4H, cold for ten tricks. The offending side has previously > >committed MI and now commits use of UI by bidding 4S. Without > >the MI, the non-offending side would double 4S, but because of > >the MI the non-offending side bids 5H, down one. > > > >There is a one-sixth or better chance that 4Sx would be -800, > > Richard Hills (10th March 2009): > > That is, at all probable if the Law 16 infraction had occurred. > > Richard Hills (14th February 2007): > > >but the one-third or better chance 4Sx is merely a -500 > >penalty. > > Richard Hills (10th March 2009): > > That is, likely if the Law 75 infraction had not occurred and/or > was corrected in time via Law 20F4. > > Richard Hills (14th February 2007): > > >In that case, the non-offending side is awarded +620, > > Richard Hills (10th March 2009): > > The likely result if the Law 16 infraction had not occurred. > > Richard Hills (14th February 2007): > > >but the offending side gets -800. > > Richard Hills: > > The at all probable result if the Law 16 infraction occurred, > but there was a timely correction of the Law 75 infraction via > Law 20F4. > > * * * > > Okay, Adam Wildavsky, does this example validate the Drafting > Committee's original versions of Laws 12C1(e)(i) [retained by > ACBL] and 12C1(e)(ii) [changed by ACBL] ??? > > (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 favourable result that was likely > had the irregularity not occurred. > > (ii) For an offending side the score assigned is the most > unfavourable result that was at all probable. Hi Richard! I haven't been intentionally ignoring your question. I didn't see your message until now. You'll get my attention more quickly by putting my address on the To: or Cc: line. That said, I don't understand what you are asking. It seems to me that our discussion of 12c1(e)(ii) will be simplified if we limit ourselves to cases with a single infraction. -- Adam Wildavsky www.tameware.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090313/86f30196/attachment.htm From rbusch at ozemail.com.au Fri Mar 13 08:43:16 2009 From: rbusch at ozemail.com.au (rbusch at ozemail.com.au) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:43:16 +1000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited Message-ID: <000c01c9a3af$5f8250f0$0301010a@LATEST> After all this time I stll have trouble finding consensus on this Law. Take this example: Pairs: West North East 1D 2C 1NT corrected to 2NT and bidding proceeds. Result EW +120, The field are playing in Diamonds EW for 110 or clubs NS for EW +50 or +100. So +120 is a top for EW. West held a good 14 HCP and in a smooth 1D - (2C) - 2NT auction would have gone on to 3NT. However he has seen East's limited insufficient 1NT bid (AI under Law) and elected to pass. One might see this as 'rub of the green' under the Law. EW via their infraction have blundered into an unlikely spot which happens to be the best scoring spot. But they were helped by the fact that the IB is AI, so West could save them from a disastrous 3NT spot. It seems to me unfair, but when have' legal' and 'fair' been synonymous? I've often wondered why Law 27B1(a) allows the IB to be AI, rather than just declaring it UI.. My tentative conclusion: to make it UI would be to place partner in an almost impossible no-win situation. So the Lawmakers made it AI but provided a 'safety net' for opponents by allowing the TD to adjust the result under 27D. Question 1: Law 27D requires the TD, in considering whether to adjust, to decide whether 'without assistance gained through the infraction the outcome of the board could have been different',;.Does 'assistance gained through the infraction' include the information gained from the IB, authorised though it may be? So my question is: Is the TD ever or never allowed to consider the AI from the infraction as 'assistance gained through the infraction', and, if he is, when? If he is not, then my safety net throry is dead. Question 2: Having decided to make an adjustment, the TD is required to 'seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the board had the IB not occurred'. This is rather ambiguous, Using the above example, does one merely consider the outcome of the auction minus the IB i.e. 1S - (2C) - 2NT? Or does one consider other likely but different auctions without an IB that may have occurred on this hand e.g. 1D - (2C) - Pass or 1D - (2C) - 2D.? Reg Busch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090313/46f51f41/attachment.htm From PeterEidt at t-online.de Fri Mar 13 10:13:17 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:13:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?Law_27_revisited?= In-Reply-To: <000c01c9a3af$5f8250f0$0301010a@LATEST> References: <000c01c9a3af$5f8250f0$0301010a@LATEST> Message-ID: <1Li3S9-1VvIi80@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Reg Busch > After all this time I stll have trouble finding ?consensus on > this Law. > Take this example: Pairs: > West ? ?North ? ? East ? > 1D ? ? ? ? ?2C ? ? ? ?1NT ? ? ? corrected to 2NT and bidding proceeds. > Result EW +120, > The field are playing in ?Diamonds EW for 110 or clubs > NS for EW +50 or +100. So +120 is a top for ?EW. ? > West held a good 14 HCP and in a smooth 1D - ?(2C) - 2NT > auction would have gone on to 3NT. > However he has seen East's limited ?insufficient 1NT bid (AI > under Law) and elected to pass. ? One might see this as 'rub of the > green' under ?the Law. EW via their infraction have blundered into an > unlikely spot which ?happens to be the best scoring spot. But they > were helped by the fact that the ?IB is AI, so West could save them > from a disastrous 3NT spot. It seems to me ?unfair, but when have' > legal' and 'fair' been synonymous? I've often wondered ?why ?Law > 27B1(a) allows the IB to be AI, rather than just declaring it UI.. ?My > tentative conclusion: to make it UI would be to place partner in an > almost ?impossible no-win situation. So the Lawmakers made it AI but > provided a 'safety ?net' for opponents by allowing the TD to adjust > the result under ?27D. ? > > Question 1: Law 27D requires the TD, in considering whether to > adjust, to decide whether 'without assistance gained ?through the > infraction the outcome of the board could have been ?different',;. > Does 'assistance gained through the infraction' include the ? > information gained from the IB, authorised though it may be? > So my question is: ?Is the TD ever or never allowed to consider > the AI from the infraction as ?'assistance gained through the > infraction', and, if he is, when? If he is not, ?then my safety net > throry is dead. ? It is not _never_! But what is the AI? Remember that if the offender tells the table his intention for bidding insufficiently, that part of information clearly is UI for his partner. So we suppose hid did not. Now partner (and offenders) are entitled to guess offender's intention. And that _guess_ is AI for all players. 'Assistance gained through the infraction' here surely includes potential (or probable) information after guessing offender's intention. An IB of 1 NT (that is likely not to be an unintended bid), corrected to 2 NT "carries" the probale AI of being weaker than a systemetic 2 NT. That is supposed to be 'Assistance'. > Question 2: Having decided to make an ?adjustment, > the TD is required to 'seek to recover as nearly as possible the > probable outcome of the board had the IB not occurred'. This is rather > ?ambiguous, Using the above example, does one merely consider the > outcome of the ?auction minus the IB i.e. 1S - (2C) - 2NT? No, not necessarily. If offender has no 2 NT bid (his hand does not meet the requirements), it is not probable he would have chosen it. > Or does one consider other likely but different ?auctions without an IB that may > have occurred on this hand e.g. 1D - (2C) - Pass ?or 1D - (2C) - 2D.? Yes, exactly. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 03:37:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:37:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) - postscript References: <00f001c9a301$4beda4d0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49B8F472.7010801@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001201c9a3ce$13c72ae0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 11:39 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) - postscript > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Out of the question to meddle with >> the Auvergne" >> [ Junior Minister comments on the >> Balladur proposals to redraw the >> political map of France.] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be >>> relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: >>> ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is >>> an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director >>> follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity >>> (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not >>> to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were >>> no statement of claim but should take into account any later >>> part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> +=+ After sending the above I had a further thought. >> Under Law 46 nomination in a claim of a card that is not >> present in dummy is an irregularity. It is a violation of Law 46 >> (and see 46B4). Whether it constitutes a revoke - see 64B3 - >> is an interesting question: potentially it is not an established >> revoke because of 46B4. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Is Grattan saying that in such a case, declarer is allowed to nominate a > card afterwards, and that L64B4 precedes and invalidates L67B1? > I don't think that is what the Lawmakers intended. > +=+ Nor is it what I said. The Director applies Law 70. He does not allow the irregularity embodied in the claim. He does allow any legal play that would be inferior or careless for the class of player; recall that 'irrational' in 70E is not linked to class of player. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 12:29:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:29:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred><001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002001c9a3cf$009d0ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:34 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:38:38 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Out of the question to meddle with >> the Auvergne" >> [ Junior Minister comments on the >> Balladur proposals to redraw the >> political map of France.] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:57 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Grattan Endicott>>> also >>> ************************************ >>>> "Out of the question to meddle with >>>> the Auvergne" >>>> [ Junior Minister comments on the >>>> Balladur proposals to redraw the >>>> political map of France.] >>>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >> +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained >> in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Hearts were trump and he knew the opponents had hearts. He just didn't > know hearts were trump. > +=+ So, if he did not know hearts were trumps knowledge that opponents held hearts was not knowledge that they held trumps. ~ G ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 13 13:12:52 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:12:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <002001c9a3cf$009d0ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred><001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001c9a3cf$009d0ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49BA4DC4.6000704@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 5:34 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:38:38 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "Out of the question to meddle with >>> the Auvergne" >>> [ Junior Minister comments on the >>> Balladur proposals to redraw the >>> political map of France.] >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Robert Frick" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:57 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Grattan Endicott>>>> also >>>> ************************************ >>>>> "Out of the question to meddle with >>>>> the Auvergne" >>>>> [ Junior Minister comments on the >>>>> Balladur proposals to redraw the >>>>> political map of France.] >>>>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained >>> in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ >> Hearts were trump and he knew the opponents had hearts. He just didn't >> know hearts were trump. >> > +=+ So, if he did not know hearts were trumps knowledge that opponents > held hearts was not knowledge that they held trumps. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Yes Grattan, but the point that was tried being made was that once he realises that hearts are trumps, he also realises opponents hold trumps, and it would not be normal for him not to draw them. And the point previously made was that he shall realise hearts are trumps immediately after "discarding" one of them (and leading from the wrong hand which he can do -as declarer- without penalty). Herman. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From john at asimere.com Fri Mar 13 14:27:09 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:27:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be><1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be><00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred><001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001c9a3cf$009d0ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <75CC5202E16349DDB7FB58E2644BF8FE@JOHN> >>>> >>> +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained >>> in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> Hearts were trump and he knew the opponents had hearts. He just didn't >> know hearts were trump. >> > +=+ So, if he did not know hearts were trumps knowledge that opponents > held hearts was not knowledge that they held trumps. > ~ G ~ +=+ > Grattan, are we doubtful that he would discover that hearts were trump before he sustained a ruff? "doubtful points are resolved ......" or do i miss the point? John > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 13 14:45:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 09:45:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited In-Reply-To: <000c01c9a3af$5f8250f0$0301010a@LATEST> References: <000c01c9a3af$5f8250f0$0301010a@LATEST> Message-ID: <4520CD24-1D49-4F3D-88F5-3054124C49FA@starpower.net> On Mar 13, 2009, at 3:43 AM, wrote: > After all this time I stll have trouble finding consensus on this > Law. Take this example: Pairs: > West North East > 1D 2C 1NT corrected to 2NT and bidding > proceeds. Result EW +120, The field are playing in Diamonds EW for > 110 or clubs NS for EW +50 or +100. So +120 is a top for EW. > > West held a good 14 HCP and in a smooth 1D - (2C) - 2NT auction > would have gone on to 3NT. However he has seen East's limited > insufficient 1NT bid (AI under Law) and elected to pass. > > One might see this as 'rub of the green' under the Law. EW via > their infraction have blundered into an unlikely spot which happens > to be the best scoring spot. But they were helped by the fact that > the IB is AI, so West could save them from a disastrous 3NT spot. > It seems to me unfair, but when have' legal' and 'fair' been > synonymous? I've often wondered why Law 27B1(a) allows the IB to > be AI, rather than just declaring it UI.. My tentative conclusion: > to make it UI would be to place partner in an almost impossible no- > win situation. So the Lawmakers made it AI but provided a 'safety > net' for opponents by allowing the TD to adjust the result under 27D. Correct. > Question 1: Law 27D requires the TD, in considering whether to > adjust, to decide whether 'without assistance gained through the > infraction the outcome of the board could have been > different',;.Does 'assistance gained through the infraction' > include the information gained from the IB, authorised though it > may be? So my question is: Is the TD ever or never allowed to > consider the AI from the infraction as 'assistance gained through > the infraction', and, if he is, when? If he is not, then my safety > net throry is dead. ISTM the AI/UI issue is a red herring. You're comparing the actual result, which is known, with a prospective result in which the "I" didn't manifest. > Question 2: Having decided to make an adjustment, the TD is > required to 'seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable > outcome of the board had the IB not occurred'. This is rather > ambiguous, Using the above example, does one merely consider the > outcome of the auction minus the IB i.e. 1S - (2C) - 2NT? No. Indeed, one doesn't consider it at all, unless 2NT would have been a possible systemic call after 1S-2C- without any additional action. > Or does one consider other likely but different auctions without an > IB that may have occurred on this hand e.g. 1D - (2C) - Pass or 1D > - (2C) - 2D.? That is the correct approach. L27D requires an adjustment if 2NT "could well have" not been reached after 1S-2C- with no irregularity occuring, "and in consequence the NOS is damaged". It sounds like, in this case, the "probable outcome of the board had the IB not occurred" would be chosen from (or be a L12C1(c) weighted average of) the "field" scores Reg lists (+110 in diamonds or +50 or +100 vs clubs). "L16 does not apply", so the prospective -100 in 3NT, which would be the likely adjustment if we were to treat the IB as UI, is not considered. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 17:07:02 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:07:02 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred><001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <002001c9a3cf$009d0ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49BA4DC4.6000704@skynet.be> Message-ID: <006001c9a3f5$c4b1a020$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:12 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >>>>>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>> +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained >>>> in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ >>> Hearts were trump and he knew the opponents had hearts. He just didn't >>> know hearts were trump. >>> >> +=+ So, if he did not know hearts were trumps knowledge that opponents >> held hearts was not knowledge that they held trumps. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> > > Yes Grattan, but the point that was tried being made was that once he > realises that hearts are trumps, he also realises opponents hold trumps, > and it would not be normal for him not to draw them. > And the point previously made was that he shall realise hearts are > trumps immediately after "discarding" one of them (and leading from the > wrong hand which he can do -as declarer- without penalty). > > Herman. > +=+ In accordance with the WBFLC minute the Director will not allow the latter irregularity. As for drawing trumps, I class not doing so as an inferior play - it is not 'irrational' unless it is irrational as a matter of logic and reason. Class of player has nothing to do with that, it is attributed its dictionary meaning. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 13 17:30:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 16:30:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be><1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de><49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be><00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred><001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred><002001c9a3cf$009d0ce0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <75CC5202E16349DDB7FB58E2644BF8FE@JOHN> Message-ID: <006f01c9a3f8$fd6f8190$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:27 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > >>>>> >>>> +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained >>>> in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ >>> >>> Hearts were trump and he knew the opponents had hearts. He just didn't >>> know hearts were trump. >>> >> +=+ So, if he did not know hearts were trumps knowledge that opponents >> held hearts was not knowledge that they held trumps. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> > > Grattan, are we doubtful that he would discover that hearts were trump > before he sustained a ruff? > > "doubtful points are resolved ......" or do i miss the point? John >> +=+ The point I have made is that he did not know hearts were trumps when claiming. so 70C2 is satisfied and we move on to 70C3. At this stage the question is whether the play is normal. True he will learn about trumps when he ruffs his own trick. In accordance with the WBFLC the Director will not allow the irregularity of a lead from the wrong hand - and at this stage opponent has no power to accept it - the Director is ruling. See my parallel post to HDW re 'normal' and 'irrational'. I am not sure that everyone appreciates that the deletion of 'irrational' from the footnote was a major change, restoring equality among players as Kaplan originally established it - his placement of the comma excluded 'irrationality' from any link with 'class of player', as Bill Schoder persistently observed through the years - finally persuading the Drafting Subcommittee to do something in 2007 about the false removal of it subsequently to a different point in the sentence. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 13 17:54:11 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (rfrick at rfrick.info) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:54:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [blml] probabilities In-Reply-To: <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Suppose there is a 1/2 probability of heads when I flip a coin, defined as the proportion of heads in infinite flips. I flip the coin. Whether it comes up heads or tails does not change that .5 probability. Suppose I am now going to flip this coin three times. The probability of it being three heads is 1/8. However, if I get heads on the first toss, the probabilty of three heads is now 1/4. If I get heads on the second toss, the probability is not 1/2 that all three of my tosses will be heads. And if I flip it again and it is heads, it is very odd to say that the probability drops from 1/2 back to 1/8. Because of course these were different kinds of probability with different meanings. The 1/8 only applied to these particular coin tosses when we didn't know anything about these coin tosses. Or suppose the weatherman says there is a 1/8 chance of rain on Monday, then the next day says there was a 1/4 chance, then the next day says there is a 1/2 chance of rain. Then it rains. On Tuesday, most people would not attach meaning to the question of the probability of rain on the previous day. The similar problem occurs when you talk about the probabilities given that there was an irregularity when there was an irregularity. I am not denying that you can assign a probability of rain for the previous day, although I don't know how you would do that. This is not amenable to those types of probabilities, which of course is why I chose it. Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 13 18:35:28 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 18:35:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] probabilities In-Reply-To: <47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com> References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> <47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com> Message-ID: <49BA9960.7050403@ulb.ac.be> rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : > Suppose there is a 1/2 probability of heads when I flip a coin, defined as > the proportion of heads in infinite flips. I flip the coin. Whether it > comes up heads or tails does not change that .5 probability. > > Suppose I am now going to flip this coin three times. The probability of > it being three heads is 1/8. However, if I get heads on the first toss, > the probabilty of three heads is now 1/4. If I get heads on the second > toss, the probability is not 1/2 that all three of my tosses will be > heads. AG : what is it then ? > And if I flip it again and it is heads, it is very odd to say that > the probability drops from 1/2 back to 1/8. > Agreed, but it is correct to say that it was 1/8 at first. > Because of course these were different kinds of probability with different > meanings. The 1/8 only applied to these particular coin tosses when we > didn't know anything about these coin tosses. > AG : to summarize, the probability of both A and B happening is nought when we know A didn't happen, and increases when we know A happened. There are even formulae for that. > The similar problem occurs when you talk about the > probabilities given that there was an irregularity when there was an > irregularity. > > AG : not quite. There is such a thing as Bayesian information. When there are two (or more) possible causes for an event, and you don't know which is right, you assess a probability to those causes. The fact that one of those causes indeed occurred (else, the event wouldn't have happened) dioesn't mean your assessment is wrong. There are indeed cases when you don't know whether Mr. Doe committed an irregularity (fact are disputed ; or you don't know which table fouled the board etc.). Using probabilities in those cases is 100% legitimate. Come to think of it, this is the same as computing probabilities for specific distributions of the cards. Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 13 21:25:27 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:25:27 -0500 Subject: [blml] probabilities In-Reply-To: <49BA9960.7050403@ulb.ac.be> References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> <47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <49BA9960.7050403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:35:28 -0500, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > rfrick at rfrick.info a ?crit : >> Suppose there is a 1/2 probability of heads when I flip a coin, defined >> as >> the proportion of heads in infinite flips. I flip the coin. Whether it >> comes up heads or tails does not change that .5 probability. >> >> Suppose I am now going to flip this coin three times. The probability of >> it being three heads is 1/8. However, if I get heads on the first toss, >> the probabilty of three heads is now 1/4. If I get heads on the second >> toss, the probability is not 1/2 that all three of my tosses will be >> heads. > AG : what is it then ? Sorry, I meant "The probability is now 1/2 that all three of my tosses will be heads." > >> And if I flip it again and it is heads, it is very odd to say that >> the probability drops from 1/2 back to 1/8. >> > Agreed, but it is correct to say that it was 1/8 at first. > >> Because of course these were different kinds of probability with >> different >> meanings. The 1/8 only applied to these particular coin tosses when we >> didn't know anything about these coin tosses. >> > AG : to summarize, the probability of both A and B happening is nought > when we know A didn't happen, and increases when we know A happened. > There are even formulae for that. > >> The similar problem occurs when you talk about the >> probabilities given that there was an irregularity when there was an >> irregularity. >> >> > AG : not quite. There is such a thing as Bayesian information. > When there are two (or more) possible causes for an event, and you don't > know which is right, you assess a probability to those causes. The fact > that one of those causes indeed occurred (else, the event wouldn't have > happened) dioesn't mean your assessment is wrong. > > There are indeed cases when you don't know whether Mr. Doe committed an > irregularity (fact are disputed ; or you don't know which table fouled > the board etc.). > Using probabilities in those cases is 100% legitimate. > > Come to think of it, this is the same as computing probabilities for > specific distributions of the cards. I am not exactly sure whay you are saying. Suppose we spin a coin and observe whether it comes up heads or tail. There is some frequential probability p of the response being heads. That does not change when we spin the coin and observe it being heads. I think that was what Richard was trying to say. If the goal is to know what players of like ability would have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change when we observe then playing 2S or 3S. However, our estimate of that probability might change. Is that what you are saying? So, if we knew that 10 of 20 pairs of like ability make 8 tricks in two spades and 10 make 7 tricks, it does not matter much what these players did in 2S or 3S. But it is one more data point and changes the probabilities slightly. Bob From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 14 03:10:14 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 02:10:14 -0000 Subject: [blml] probabilities References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com><47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com><49BA9960.7050403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <002401c9a44a$04620e40$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [blml] probabilities >> If the goal is to know what players of like ability would have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change when we observe them playing 2S or 3S. +=+ If to make 3S required a finesse and 2S did not, depending on the scoring method for the competition, the temperament and the judgement of players of like standard, a proportion (be it high or low) of such declarers could well opt to play safely in 2S, others not. These alternative approaches and judgements must be considered when assessing the probabilities of the various potential outcomes. ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sun Mar 15 15:25:34 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:25:34 -0000 Subject: [blml] Pause for thought Message-ID: <000b01c9a579$e86e2c10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Lois McMaster Bujold, winner of four Hugo Awards: I admit, though, my all-time favorite fan letter was from a woman in Canada. She wrote to tell me she had been reading "Shards of Honor", and, not wanting to put it down, took the book along to read while standing in line at the bank. She is not, she added, normally very scatterbrained or oblivious, but she does like to focus on what she reads. Eventually, she got to the teller to do the necessary banking. The teller said she could not give her change, as the robber had taken all her money. "What robber?" my reader asked. "The one who just held us up at gunpoint," the teller explained. It turned out that while she had been engrossed in reading, a masked gunman had come in, robbed the bank, and made his escape, and she never noticed a thing. My reader wrote me, "All I can say is, it must have been a very quiet robbery. The security guard at the door asked if I could describe the thief for the police. Embarrassed, I said no, I didn't think I could." Reg Busch asked: [snip] >Question 2: Having decided to make an adjustment, the TD is required >to 'seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the >board had the IB not occurred'. This is rather ambiguous, Using the >above example, does one merely consider the outcome of the auction >minus the IB i.e. 1D - (2C) - 2NT? Richard Hills answers: No. Reg Busch asked: >Or does one consider other likely but different auctions without an >IB that may have occurred on this hand e.g. 1D - (2C) - Pass or 1D - >(2C) - 2D? Richard Hills answers: Yes. For example: >From the insufficient bidder's point of view, the auction initially proceeded: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D Pass 1NT(1) --- (1) East has a 3343 shape with 9 hcp; due to East-West playing inverted minors East is required to bid 1NT rather than raising partner's diamond suit. The Director call causes East to realise that the auction actually is: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 2C 1NT --- --- --- 2NT(2) Pass Pass(3) (2) East has a club stopper, so converting to 2NT (promising 11 hcp instead of East's actual 9 hcp) is only a slight overbid, plus has the advantage of not barring partner from the auction. The system conversion to a 2D raise has the disadvantage of barring from the auction (Law 27B2) a partner who might hold 19 hcp. (3) Passing with a good 14 hcp, but West would normally automatically raise to 3NT when pard promised 11-12 hcp balanced with 2NT, due to West knowing that a 1NT response to 1D has a maximum of 10 hcp. The field is in 2D making three for +110, but this East-West score a top in an impossible-to-reach 2NT making two for +120. Law 27D adjusts the auction to: WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1D 2C 2D Pass Pass(4) Pass (4) Note that since the insufficient bid is deemed to have never happened, this Pass is an insufficient-values-to-bid-2NT Pass, _not_ a Law 27B2 enforced Pass. 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 Mar 16 06:12:40 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:12:40 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pause for thought [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000b01c9a579$e86e2c10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: "If you should ever be in a hold-up line up with the cowards" ~ O. Henry Richard Hills (1959 - ): If you should ever be in a hold-up, avoid stress by being engrossed in one of Bujold's books and not noticing it. Lois McMaster Bujold (1949 - ): Years ago I read an interview with a forensic pathologist who said he had never gone into a bad crime scene, where he had to clean the blood off the walls and whatnot, in any place where there were a lot of books. [snip] Books give readers a place to go. This is good for your health and good for the health of people around you as well. In that sense, I think reading can be a form of self- medication. [snip] That said, if there is any meaning at all in any work of fiction that can be transposed back to real daily life, it lies in the characters' lives and moral dilemmas. "All great deeds have been accomplished out of imperfection," as one of my characters remarks. Grattan Endicott (sage - ): +=+ Sunday siesta. No weekend traffic again +=+ Tom Lehrer (1928 - ): [snip] Evr'y Sunday you'll see my sweetheart and me, As we poison the pigeons in the park. [snip] We've gained notoriety And caused much anxiety in the Audubon society with our games. They call it impiety, and lack of propriety, And quite a variety of unpleasant names. But it's not against any religion To want to dispose of a pigeon. [snip] Richard Hills (1959 - ): If in a matchpoint pairs event LHO has Paused for thought, and RHO has not thought enough about lack of (Law 73C) propriety, but instead RHO gained notoriety by automatically bidding 3H rather than the true (Law 16) religion of RHO passing, then you may find yourself declaring 3S, not your preferred contract of 2S. In 3S you Pause for thought, and analyse the only two sensible lines: Line A 75% of the time you are three off: -300 25% of the time you are one off: -100 Line B 100% of the time you are two off: -200 Since, at matchpoint pairs, a score of -200 or worse in a competitive partscore auction is the Kiss of Death, you elect to try Line A. It is your lucky day, -100. Now the Director arrives at the table, and cancels RHO's 3H impiety, then the Director Pauses for thought about the two sensible lines in the one-level-lower contract of 2S: Line A 75% of the time you are two off: -200 25% of the time you make exactly: +110 Line B 100% of the time you are one off: -100 The odds have changed. In 2S (not 3S) Line A is now the less attractive line, since it is worth a near-bottom 75% of the time and a near-top a mere 25% of the time. Meanwhile, in 2S (not 3S) Line B is now the more attractive line, since it is worth a near-average 100% of the time. Ergo, after her Pause for thought, the Director adjusts the score from 8 tricks in 3S -100 to 7 tricks in 2S -100. The Director also applies a procedural penalty in the park to RHO (but not to LHO, since this is an Individual World Championship and Law 12C3 applies). Law 12C3: "In individual events the Director enforces the rectifications in these Laws, and the provisions requiring the award of adjusted scores, equally against both members of the offending side even though only one of them may be responsible for the irregularity. But the Director shall not award a procedural penalty against the offender's partner if of the opinion that he is in no way to blame." 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 Mar 16 06:33:51 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:33:51 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pause for thought [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000b01c9a579$e86e2c10$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <200903160533.n2G5XpeI003487@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 04:12 PM 16/03/2009, you wrote: >"If you should ever be in a hold-up line up with the cowards" >~ O. Henry > >Richard Hills (1959 - ): > >If you should ever be in a hold-up, avoid stress by being >engrossed in one of Bujold's books and not noticing it. > >Lois McMaster Bujold (1949 - ): > >Years ago I read an interview with a forensic pathologist >who said he had never gone into a bad crime scene, where he >had to clean the blood off the walls and whatnot, in any >place where there were a lot of books. > >[snip] > >Books give readers a place to go. This is good for your >health and good for the health of people around you as well. >In that sense, I think reading can be a form of self- >medication. > >[snip] > >That said, if there is any meaning at all in any work of >fiction that can be transposed back to real daily life, it >lies in the characters' lives and moral dilemmas. "All great >deeds have been accomplished out of imperfection," as one of >my characters remarks. > >Grattan Endicott (sage - ): > >+=+ Sunday siesta. No weekend traffic again +=+ > >Tom Lehrer (1928 - ): > >[snip] > >Evr'y Sunday you'll see my sweetheart and me, >As we poison the pigeons in the park. > >[snip] > >We've gained notoriety >And caused much anxiety in the Audubon society with our games. >They call it impiety, and lack of propriety, >And quite a variety of unpleasant names. >But it's not against any religion >To want to dispose of a pigeon. > >[snip] > >Richard Hills (1959 - ): > >If in a matchpoint pairs event LHO has Paused for thought, and >RHO has not thought enough about lack of (Law 73C) propriety, >but instead RHO gained notoriety by automatically bidding 3H >rather than the true (Law 16) religion of RHO passing, then >you may find yourself declaring 3S, not your preferred contract >of 2S. > >In 3S you Pause for thought, and analyse the only two sensible >lines: > >Line A > >75% of the time you are three off: -300 >25% of the time you are one off: -100 > >Line B > >100% of the time you are two off: -200 > >Since, at matchpoint pairs, a score of -200 or worse in a >competitive partscore auction is the Kiss of Death, you elect >to try Line A. It is your lucky day, -100. > >Now the Director arrives at the table, and cancels RHO's 3H >impiety, then the Director Pauses for thought about the two >sensible lines in the one-level-lower contract of 2S: > >Line A > >75% of the time you are two off: -200 >25% of the time you make exactly: +110 > >Line B > >100% of the time you are one off: -100 Sorry, I think for less than a nanosecond, check that Deep Finesse makes 110, and give them 110, the offenders get -110. Am I a bad director? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 16 08:26:57 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:26:57 -0500 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:38:38 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > "Out of the question to meddle with > the Auvergne" > [ Junior Minister comments on the > Balladur proposals to redraw the > political map of France.] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:57 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > >> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Grattan Endicott>> also >> ************************************ >>> "Out of the question to meddle with >>> the Auvergne" >>> [ Junior Minister comments on the >>> Balladur proposals to redraw the >>> political map of France.] >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM >>> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the >>>> thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will >>>> play >>>> it, even if it is not "really" there. >>>> >>>>> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >>>>> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >>>>> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >>>>> A judgemental decision of the TD. >>>>> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >>>>> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >>>>> >>> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be >>> relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: >>> ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is >>> an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director >>> follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity >>> (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not >>> to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were >>> no statement of claim but should take into account any later >>> part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." >>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>> >> >> This denies the defense the opportunity to accept a lead from the wrong >> hand. >> >> Declarer claimed, saying he would pitch small hearts from dummy on his >> good spades. Unbeknownst to him, hearts were trump. The ruling was that >> he >> would be woken up to the fact that hearts were trump when he was told >> that >> he won the trick in dummy. He would then know to draw trumps and hence >> would make the rest of the tricks anyway. >> > +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained > in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ I asked this claim problem on rec.games.bridge, hoping to get opinions on drawing trump. They were mixed. If there was any majority focus, which is debatable, it was that the defenders should be allowed to accept the lead out of turn by claimer. Even when I told them of the WBFLC minute, they still seemed to think that. I think players know (1) the right to accept a lead out of turn and (2) the right to select the best line of play in defense against the claim. So their focus makes sense. Imagine, for example, that declarer claims, saying he will lead a spade from dummy, ruff small in hand, and then draw trump. The opps dispute the claim, pointing out that they over-ruff. But dummy now points out that the lead is in declarer's hand. So declarer saves a trick by claiming, compared to following his claiming statement. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 16 07:33:27 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:33:27 +1100 Subject: [blml] Pause for thought [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <200903160533.n2G5XpeI003487@mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au> Message-ID: Tony Musgrove asked: >Sorry, I think for less than a nanosecond, check that Deep Finesse >makes 110, and give them 110, the offenders get -110. Am I a bad >director? Law 12B1: ".....Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the _expectation_ had the infraction not occurred....." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: expectation n., ground for anticipation, prospects of inheritance Richard Hills: The computer program Deep Finesse calculates mini-max results on the assumption that declarer and defenders see 52 cards, rather than 26 (or, on the opening lead, a mere 13). Unless offending defenders at Tony's club always flourish all of their cards in declarer's face, yes indeed relying on the "pitiful crutch" (as Terence Reese described the fourth-suit forcing convention) of Deep Finesse is often a Director's Error. Robert Vansittart (1881-1957), British diplomat: "The soul of our service is the loyalty with which we execute ordained error." 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 Mar 16 10:23:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:23:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49BE1A7D.6060209@skynet.be> A valid remark by Robert. Robert Frick wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:38:38 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> "Out of the question to meddle with >> the Auvergne" >> [ Junior Minister comments on the >> Balladur proposals to redraw the >> political map of France.] >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 1:57 AM >> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >> >> >>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:07:50 -0500, Grattan >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Grattan Endicott>>> also >>> ************************************ >>>> "Out of the question to meddle with >>>> the Auvergne" >>>> [ Junior Minister comments on the >>>> Balladur proposals to redraw the >>>> political map of France.] >>>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "Herman De Wael" >>>> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 9:07 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Peter forgets that "normal" should be judged from within the >>>>> thought-frame of declarer. If he sees a spade on the table, he will >>>>> play >>>>> it, even if it is not "really" there. >>>>> >>>>>> So, if there is/are (a) trump(s) left on the table in any >>>>>> normal* line of play and dummy will be able to ruff >>>>>> one spade, declarer might get his trick back. >>>>>> A judgemental decision of the TD. >>>>>> I consider it not to be normal* if declarer refuses >>>>>> to ruff a spade in dummy, if he has a trump left there. >>>>>> >>>> +=+ I have not studied the case. However, should it be >>>> relevant, I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: >>>> ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is >>>> an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director >>>> follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity >>>> (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not >>>> to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were >>>> no statement of claim but should take into account any later >>>> part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." >>>> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >>>> >>> This denies the defense the opportunity to accept a lead from the wrong >>> hand. >>> >>> Declarer claimed, saying he would pitch small hearts from dummy on his >>> good spades. Unbeknownst to him, hearts were trump. The ruling was that >>> he >>> would be woken up to the fact that hearts were trump when he was told >>> that >>> he won the trick in dummy. He would then know to draw trumps and hence >>> would make the rest of the tricks anyway. >>> >> +=+ At the time of his claim declarer was unaware that a trump remained >> in an opponent's hand by this account. ~ G ~ +=+ > > I asked this claim problem on rec.games.bridge, hoping to get opinions on > drawing trump. They were mixed. If there was any majority focus, which is > debatable, it was that the defenders should be allowed to accept the lead > out of turn by claimer. Even when I told them of the WBFLC minute, they > still seemed to think that. > > I think players know (1) the right to accept a lead out of turn and (2) > the right to select the best line of play in defense against the claim. So > their focus makes sense. Imagine, for example, that declarer claims, > saying he will lead a spade from dummy, ruff small in hand, and then draw > trump. The opps dispute the claim, pointing out that they over-ruff. But > dummy now points out that the lead is in declarer's hand. So declarer > saves a trick by claiming, compared to following his claiming statement. > Robert is right, defenders should not lose the option of accepting the lead from the wrong hand just because declarer claims. The original contained another twist though. In that case, claimer needs to learn that he has forgotten that there is a trump suit (or which one it is). He learns this by leading from the wrong hand, and being drawn attention to this. While I grant that defenders would be allowed to accept that lead from the wrong hand, I do not allow them to do so silently, in such a way that declarer does not notice. IOW, I do not consider it "normal" for defenders to also forget about the trump suit, or for them to accept a lead from the wrong hand without drawing attention in some way to the irregularity. And as soon as they draw attention to the irregularity, teh TD must be called and the confusion must be settled, and we must allow claimer to wake up from his previous state of playing the wrong contract. Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 16 11:25:46 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:25:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] probabilities In-Reply-To: References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> <47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <49BA9960.7050403@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49BE292A.9070802@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am not exactly sure whay you are saying. Suppose we spin a coin and > observe whether it comes up heads or tail. There is some frequential > probability p of the response being heads. That does not change when we > spin the coin and observe it being heads. I think that was what Richard > was trying to say. If the goal is to know what players of like ability > would have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change when we > observe then playing 2S or 3S. > Alas, this isn't true. - safety plays in 2S, unavailable in 3S - risks taken trying to beat 2S, which result in 9 tricks that wouldn't have been made in 3S - pairs considerations, like "going down 1 in 2S will surely be enough for above average" etc. > However, our estimate of that probability might change. Is that what you > are saying? So, if we knew that 10 of 20 pairs of like ability make 8 > tricks in two spades and 10 make 7 tricks, it does not matter much what > these players did in 2S or 3S. But it is one more data point and changes > the probabilities slightly. > I was more on the theoretical side. But, now that you mention it, what other pairs do in 2S shouldn't be taken into account in deciding what these players would do in 3S - or at least with great caution. Best regards Alain From karel at esatclear.ie Mon Mar 16 15:43:20 2009 From: karel at esatclear.ie (Karel) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:43:20 +0000 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! Message-ID: N/S Vul North S xx H x D AKTxxxx C Axx South S AQTx H Qxx D Qxx C Qxx S W N E 1C 2D* P P P 2D - 7 for 350 5D makes N/S. A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? B) is there anything N/S can do ? K. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 16 16:27:16 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:27:16 -0000 Subject: [blml] probabilities References: <005c01c99df9$6f9a23c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <694eadd40903122301j9d591abr261360f7e47a09c@mail.gmail.com> <47174.24.45.197.30.1236963251.squirrel@email.powweb.com> <49BA9960.7050403@ulb.ac.be> <49BE292A.9070802@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000b01c9a64b$b1f2b0c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [blml] probabilities Robert Frick a ?crit : > I am not exactly sure whay you are saying. Suppose we spin a coin and > observe whether it comes up heads or tail. There is some frequential > probability p of the response being heads. That does not change when we > spin the coin and observe it being heads. I think that was what Richard > was trying to say. If the goal is to know what players of like ability > would have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change when we > observe then playing 2S or 3S. > Alas, this isn't true. - safety plays in 2S, unavailable in 3S - risks taken trying to beat 2S, which result in 9 tricks that wouldn't have been made in 3S - pairs considerations, like "going down 1 in 2S will surely be enough for above average" etc. > However, our estimate of that probability might change. Is that what you > are saying? So, if we knew that 10 of 20 pairs of like ability make 8 > tricks in two spades and 10 make 7 tricks, it does not matter much what > these players did in 2S or 3S. But it is one more data point and changes > the probabilities slightly. > I was more on the theoretical side. But, now that you mention it, what other pairs do in 2S shouldn't be taken into account in deciding what these players would do in 3S - or at least with great caution. +=+ Directors are taught to consult players concerning judgemental matters - see CoP at 'Director's judgement after consultation' and 'Inclination of committee'. Actual table results are unreliable as a guide unless the Director is able to establish which pairs obtained their result in fairly comparable situations. This approach to consultation is approved, indeed required, by the WBF Standing Appeals Committee, and advocated by it for the practices of Regulating Authorities. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 16 16:36:50 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:36:50 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9a64d$06a46720$13ed3560$@no> On Behalf Of Karel > > N/S Vul > > North > S xx > H x > D AKTxxxx > C Axx > > South > S AQTx > H Qxx > D Qxx > C Qxx > > > S W N E > 1C 2D* P P > P > > 2D - 7 for 350 > > 5D makes N/S. > > A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? Is there any particular reason why he should not? > > B) is there anything N/S can do ? I suppose they can do whatever they like as long as they respect the laws? Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 16 17:31:52 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:31:52 -0000 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <004901c9a655$2db11220$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 1:51 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > (Reg Busch) >>Question 2: Having decided to make an adjustment, the TD is required >>to 'seek to recover as nearly as possible the probable outcome of the >>board had the IB not occurred'. This is rather ambiguous, Using the >>above example, does one merely consider the outcome of the auction >>minus the IB i.e. 1D - (2C) - 2NT? > (Richard Hills) > The field is in 2D making three for +110, but this East-West score a > top in an impossible-to-reach 2NT making two for +120. > > Law 27D adjusts the auction to: > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > 1D 2C 2D Pass > Pass(4) Pass > > (4) Note that since the insufficient bid is deemed to have never > happened, this Pass is an insufficient-values-to-bid-2NT Pass, > _not_ a Law 27B2 enforced Pass. > +=+ The assessment of when and how to apply Law 27D is in the hands of Directors and Appeals Committees. In applying this law there are two aspects to be measured. They are "could well have been different" and "the probable outcome". Expressing personal opinion but taking into account comment within Drafting SubCommittee ('DSC') membership, I offer these thoughts: "Could well have been" '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' The DSC received a comment saying: "The wording "could well have been different" seems to lead to almost exactly the same end result as if L16D were in effect here; if that is the intention, perhaps it would be simpler to use Law 16D." But " it is not only about information from the insufficient bid; for example, the occurrence and the application of law may enable a pair to stop short of game or in a safer denomination when they would not, or could not, do so had there been no insufficient bid." However, it was decided introduce the phrase 'through the infraction" imitating a device thought to have worked well in another place Usually 'could well have ' would encompass a substantial minor probability of occurrence. Taken in conjunction with what follows it might be the case here that the Director should think it possible that on 50.01% of occasions a different outcome could be anticipated. "the probable outcome" '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' The objective of the DSC was stated: "The reason for the change is that the (former) penalty is quite severe and that we want the players to play bridge instead of the laws making them guess for stupid contracts". So we are urged to believe that an adjusted score should reflect the balance of probabilities of what would have happened if the players committed no infraction and 'just played bridge'. There is a further consideration. The Director only adjusts the score if (27D) in consequence of assistance gained through the infraction (which includes the Director's application of Law 27B) the non-offending side is damaged, and to assess whether this is the case we are referred to Law12B1. ............................................................................... Quote: "This change to 27 is part of a general trend towards rectification rather than the imposition of flat penalties. ..... I think what will happen is this new provision will be tried out and will either work or won't work. In the latter case we will have to look closely at our definition(s)". This attitude has led to the subsequent loosening of the interpretation of this law The most recent effort has been published by the Italian Federation and is advocated by Maurizio Di Sacco. This invites Directors to ignore point count until the end of the hand and consideration of Law 27D. Max Bavin considers point count important and before the Italian Solution appeared he had already stated his position by requesting clarification of intention as follows: "Let us take the case of a 2S opening by East and a 1NT undercall by South. The pair concerned play both a 1NT opening and a 1NT overcall as 13-15 (!), but play a 2NT overcall as 16-18. South decides to replace his bid with 2NT so as to avoid silencing partner. The next player (West) passes, and the spotlight turns to North; would we apply Law 27D to adjust the score in any of the following situations? 1. North holds a 9-count and passes. South does indeed hold 13-15; 2NT makes on the nose. 2. As 1 above, but 2NT is solid for 9 tricks and makes with an overtrick. 3. North holds a 9-count and raises to 3NT. Although South only holds 13-15, the contract is a lucky make. 4. North holds a 12-count and raises to 3NT (he doesn't care what South actually holds, but actually South holds 13-15; the contract is an easy make). Please assume that in all the above cases a 'normal' auction would have been for both North and South to pass throughout, and thus end up defending 2S (which will make 8 tricks). 5. North holds a 9-count and passes. In fact, South holds 16-18 (he'd just got confused about the level), but amazingly you can't make 3NT. 2NT makes on the nose." (Grattan) : the answer blowing in the wind is that if just playing bridge they would have been unlikely to reach the table contract the Director should apply 27D. (Ton Kooijman has expressed his opinion in his Appendix) ................................................................................... The foregoing is guided opinion..... Whether this will lead R.B. and others any closer to a solution I await to see. Meanwhile in Sao Paulo I will enquire if the WBFLC wishes to amplify what has been said to date. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Before sending this I consulted Max Bavin for his further thoughts . His reply is: "I haven't changed my view one jot from the one you quote me with towards the end of this chain. Nor have I changed my view since learning of the Italian solution. From what I can pick up below (though it is a difficult thread to follow), Richard Hills seems to have got it spot on as usual. Broadly speaking, we adjust under 27D if either:- a) the IB-er now warps his system in order to avoid silencing partner, or b) the IB-ers partner responds as though the system has been warped. Ton's commentary is supposed to be confirming this. And, I repeat, it's nothing new - it's the way we've been doing even in 1997 - or, certainly, since 2002 [please see that famous WBFLC Minute of August 2002) If/when it happens, the adjustment is back to the normal bridge result which would have been achieved had there been no IB in the first place (which, for those of us fortunate enough to be allowed to do it, may even be a weighted score). Please note: we're talking solely of cases where the offenders take abnormal action in order to avoid silencing partner - not of cases where they take a lucky punt (thereby silencing partner). Please also note that Law 27D isn't there to correct a TDs error (as when he allows the auction to continue without rectification, when actually he shouldn't have done)." ....................................................................................................... With regard to this last point it seems to me, superficially at least, that applying Law 82C will lead to the same score adjustment as 27D. Also, in my opinion the 2002 minute has been modified by the Beijing minute which clearly intends to allow the Director more liberal scope for allowing play to continue and, if he adopts this course, allows him to recover through 27D when his judgement to do so leads to an outcome that could well have been different had the IB not occurred. There is no Director's error when he exercises the judgemental scope allowed him by the Beijing minute. There is clearly some sorting out to be done in Brazil. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 16 17:37:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:37:22 -0000 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! References: <000001c9a64d$06a46720$13ed3560$@no> Message-ID: <005501c9a655$984f3ad0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 3:36 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! >> A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? > > Is there any particular reason why he should not? > +=+ Does his partner's Pass show long diamonds? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Mar 16 19:10:25 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:10:25 -0500 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <49BE1A7D.6060209@skynet.be> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49BE1A7D.6060209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b1e598b0903161110j3e2ceb58ma1d0cbd912a667fb@mail.gmail.com> Herman De Wael wrote: > > Robert is right, defenders should not lose the option of accepting the > lead from the wrong hand just because declarer claims. I agree with that too. > The original contained another twist though. In that case, claimer needs > to learn that he has forgotten that there is a trump suit (or which one > it is). He learns this by leading from the wrong hand, and being drawn > attention to this. I am not sure what you mean by "needs to learn." The rest of Herman's argument seems out of step with the new laws, which I quote here: "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity." "Established usage has been retained in regard to [...] `should' do (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor?s rights but not often penalized), [...] `must' do (the strongest word, a serious matter indeed)." > While I grant that defenders would be allowed to accept that lead from > the wrong hand, I do not allow them to do so silently, in such a way > that declarer does not notice. Herman seems to be asserting a directorial right that is not in the laws: "The Director should be summoned at once" is not the same as "The Director must be summoned at once." Besides, it is possible to accept a lead without calling attention to its being from the wrong hand. > IOW, I do not consider it "normal" for defenders to also forget about > the trump suit, or for them to accept a lead from the wrong hand without > drawing attention in some way to the irregularity. And as soon as they > draw attention to the irregularity, teh TD must be called and the > confusion must be settled, and we must allow claimer to wake up from his > previous state of playing the wrong contract. > I am not sure why Herman put normal in quotes, but three assertions seem wrong in that paragraph: 1. "I do not consider it "normal" for defenders to [...] accept a lead from the wrong hand without drawing attention in some way to the irregularity." 2. "as soon as they draw attention to the irregularity, teh TD must be called." 3. "We must allow claimer to wake up from his previous state of playing the wrong contract." #1 is wrong because it happens all of the time. Perhaps 10% of all leads out of turn are silently accepted. #2 is wrong because the law says "should," not "must." I don't see any support for #3 in the laws. Which law would support it? Jerry Fusselman From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 16 19:25:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:25:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BE999E.6090008@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : > N/S Vul > > North > S xx > H x > D AKTxxxx > C Axx > > South > S AQTx > H Qxx > D Qxx > C Qxx > > > S W N E > 1C 2D* P P > P > > 2D - 7 for 350 > > 5D makes N/S. > > A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? > AG : if South doubles, it means partner has passed 2D, ergo he holds diamonds, ergo running is unthinkable below 66 pattern. If, however, North doubles, everything depends or partner's pass meaning over the double : if "no preference", then West may run ; if "to play" (with XX = "no preference"), then he may not. I assume there was no Alert ; if East alerted and decided to pass, there is no restriction on West. (passes of artificial bids in order to extend havoc are well-known, if the artificial bid can't be strong, e.g. facing Wagner or Wilkosz). > B) is there anything N/S can do ? > > AG : they may always call the TD, and if their double of a natural 2D would have been for T/O but a double of a (majors) 2D would have been for penalties, they surely are entuitled to redress. I'm a bit surprised that 5D makes, but if this is the case, change to 5D, which is one possible result. And, if L12C was implemented, then E/W's score could even be changed to 3NT + 1 after the lead of the wrong major. Notice that all this doesn't mean North would have doubled 2S "had he known" ; perhaps he just had at his disposal some forcing bid showing diamonds (2S in my partnerships, under "unusual vs unusual" ; or 3D ; or whatever). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 16 19:25:34 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:25:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BE999E.6090008@ulb.ac.be> Karel a ?crit : > N/S Vul > > North > S xx > H x > D AKTxxxx > C Axx > > South > S AQTx > H Qxx > D Qxx > C Qxx > > > S W N E > 1C 2D* P P > P > > 2D - 7 for 350 > > 5D makes N/S. > > A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? > AG : if South doubles, it means partner has passed 2D, ergo he holds diamonds, ergo running is unthinkable below 66 pattern. If, however, North doubles, everything depends or partner's pass meaning over the double : if "no preference", then West may run ; if "to play" (with XX = "no preference"), then he may not. I assume there was no Alert ; if East alerted and decided to pass, there is no restriction on West. (passes of artificial bids in order to extend havoc are well-known, if the artificial bid can't be strong, e.g. facing Wagner or Wilkosz). > B) is there anything N/S can do ? > > AG : they may always call the TD, and if their double of a natural 2D would have been for T/O but a double of a (majors) 2D would have been for penalties, they surely are entuitled to redress. I'm a bit surprised that 5D makes, but if this is the case, change to 5D, which is one possible result. And, if L12C was implemented, then E/W's score could even be changed to 3NT + 1 after the lead of the wrong major. Notice that all this doesn't mean North would have doubled 2S "had he known" ; perhaps he just had at his disposal some forcing bid showing diamonds (2S in my partnerships, under "unusual vs unusual" ; or 3D ; or whatever). Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 16 19:28:12 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:28:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! In-Reply-To: <005501c9a655$984f3ad0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000001c9a64d$06a46720$13ed3560$@no> <005501c9a655$984f3ad0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000101c9a664$f6e78c00$e4b6a400$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > From: "Sven Pran" > Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! > > > >> A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? > > > > Is there any particular reason why he should not? > > > +=+ Does his partner's Pass show long diamonds? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Is that really a relevant question? So long as West does not select a call "that could have been" suggested by UI he is allowed to make whatever call he wants, and I cannot see how West (from the description in OP) is in possession of any UI? Regards Sven From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 16 19:48:36 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:48:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0903161110j3e2ceb58ma1d0cbd912a667fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49BE1A7D.6060209@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0903161110j3e2ceb58ma1d0cbd912a667fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <000201c9a667$d047f9b0$70d7ed10$@no> I believe it is clear that the director when adjudicating a claim shall disregard possible illegal plays of the tricks involved in the claim. The essential question in this thread can, however, as I see it be refined to the following: Declarer claims all remaining tricks and his claim statement clearly shows that he is mistaken as to which hand (declarer or dummy) won the last trick before the claim, so his first lead according to the claim statement will be from the wrong hand (lead out of turn). This lead out of turn, if accepted by defenders, will result in a trick won by the defenders while if declarer did not make this mistake he would win all the remaining tricks. Shall this trick be given to declarer or to the defenders? Regards Sven From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 16 22:22:07 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:22:07 +1100 Subject: [blml] Law 27 revisited [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901c9a655$2db11220$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: A Conversation with Lois McMaster Bujold, page 38: Lillian Stewart Carl: Many readers make the assumption that you have to sacrifice your family for your art, or vice versa. Lois McMaster Bujold: This gives me an inner vision of a writer with her family staked out on an altar at midnight, their bodies covered with cabalistic symbols, her knife raised to dispatch them in exchange for All Worldly Success. Would that it were so simple. The run on black candles would clean out the shops. Max Bavin asserted: [big snip] >>Please also note that Law 27D isn't there to correct a TDs error (as >>when he allows the auction to continue without rectification, when >>actually he shouldn't have done)." Grattan Endicott quibbled: >With regard to this last point it seems to me, superficially at least, >that applying Law 82C will lead to the same score adjustment as 27D. >Also, in my opinion the 2002 minute has been modified by the Beijing >minute which clearly intends to allow the Director more liberal >scope for allowing play to continue and, if he adopts this course, >allows him to recover through 27D when his judgement to do so >leads to an outcome that could well have been different had the IB >not occurred. There is no Director's error when he exercises the >judgemental scope allowed him by the Beijing minute. > There is clearly some sorting out to be done in Brazil. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Official South Pacific Zone 7 interpretation of Law 27D: Whenever the Director allows the correction of an insufficient bid without restriction he should advise the non-offending side to call him back at the end of play if they consider the outcome of the hand may have been different had the offender's partner not had the assistance of the withdrawn bid. In situations where the Director considers the non-offending side has been damaged, he applies Law 27D. Any such adjustment should be based upon the most likely outcome(s), had the original infraction (i.e., the insufficient bid) not occurred. Under no circumstances may an adjusted score be awarded that gives any weight to the perceived benefit that might have accrued to the non- offending side if the Director had elected to apply Law 27B2 (even if subsequently it is considered that this may have been the more appropriate action, i.e., Law 82C is not applicable). 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 Mar 16 23:39:47 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:39:47 +1100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000201c9a667$d047f9b0$70d7ed10$@no> Message-ID: Sven Pran nicely put: >I believe it is clear that the director when adjudicating a claim shall >disregard possible illegal plays of the tricks involved in the claim. > >The essential question in this thread can, however, as I see it be refined >to the following: > >Declarer claims all remaining tricks and his claim statement clearly shows >that he is mistaken as to which hand (declarer or dummy) won the last trick >before the claim, so his first lead according to the claim statement will >be from the wrong hand (lead out of turn). > >This lead out of turn, if accepted by defenders, will result in a trick won >by the defenders while if declarer did not make this mistake he would win >all the remaining tricks. > >Shall this trick be given to declarer or to the defenders? Richard Hills guesses: My guess is that the critical issue is whether declarer led from the wrong hand before or after the claim. If the lead out of turn happened first, then before a defender could accept or reject declarer's LOOT declarer claimed, my guess is that the Director should permit the defenders to accept or reject the LOOT and only then should the Director proceed to resolve the claim. Law 9B2: "No player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification." Richard Hills guesses: In my opinion, declarer claiming before declarer's prior LOOT has been resolved falls into the category of "any action". On the other hand, if declarer has not yet led out of turn, but has instead claimed before committing an irregularity, with the claim statement proposing that the forthcoming first trick subsequent to the claim being a LOOT, then it seems to me that the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001 applies: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." Richard Hills guesses: In the Sven scenario the Director would disregard the entire claim statement, since the irregularity is embodied at its beginning point. 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 Mar 17 00:24:26 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:24:26 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be><1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be><00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49BE1A7D.6060209@skynet.be><2b1e598b0903161110j3e2ceb58ma1d0cbd912a667fb@mail.gmail.com> <000201c9a667$d047f9b0$70d7ed10$@no> Message-ID: <004901c9a68e$5a4380f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) > > Declarer claims all remaining tricks and his claim statement clearly shows > that he is mistaken as to which hand (declarer or dummy) won the last > trick > before the claim, so his first lead according to the claim statement will > be > from the wrong hand (lead out of turn). > > This lead out of turn, if accepted by defenders, << +=+ A lead out of turn by declarer may be accepted by either defender if it is *faced*. (Law 53). ~ G ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 17 00:29:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:29:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! References: <000001c9a64d$06a46720$13ed3560$@no><005501c9a655$984f3ad0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000101c9a664$f6e78c00$e4b6a400$@no> Message-ID: <000201c9a68f$1d486e30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 6:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! > On Behalf Of Grattan >> From: "Sven Pran" >> Subject: Re: [blml] Yet another ghestem !! >> >> >> >> A) If south doubles is west allowed to run ? >> > >> > Is there any particular reason why he should not? >> > >> +=+ Does his partner's Pass show long diamonds? >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > Is that really a relevant question? > > So long as West does not select a call "that could have been" suggested by > UI he is allowed to make whatever call he wants, and I cannot see how West > (from the description in OP) is in possession of any UI? > > Regards Sven > +=+ A failure to alert could convey UI perhaps? ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 17 01:53:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:53:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Grattan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <004901c9a68e$5a4380f0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: +=+ A lead out of turn by declarer may be accepted by either defender if it is *faced*. (Law 53). ~ G ~ +=+ "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." Law 45C4(a). Of course, although a claim statement names or otherwise designates a card, "must be played" is not relevant since "play ceases". Law 68D. 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 Mar 17 06:49:07 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:49:07 -0500 Subject: [blml] L12C1, probabilities, summary Message-ID: Grattan and I have proposed two very different definitions of probability to be used in applying L12C1c, L12C1e(i), and L12C1e(ii). According to Grattan, the goal is to determine what players of like ability would have done. According to me, the goal is to determine what these players, at this time, would have done. (Grattan's is an objective/empirical probability; mine is a subjective/epistemic probability.) These formulation provide equivalent quidelines for determining what would have happened had the NOS played in 2S when in fact that OS played in 3H. (Or like decisions.) For considering what would have happened when the NOS played in 3S, when in fact they played in 3S, these formulation provide very different guidelines. In my formulation, what the players would have done is the same as what they did. In Grattan's formulation, what these players did in 3S is only one data point towards discovering what players of like ability would have done in 3S. Hence, from my formulation, the ACBL has not changed the meaning of L12C1e(ii), they have just clarified it; using Grattan's formulation, the ACBL has changed the meaning of L12C1e(ii). Finally, we come to the situation where the NOs played 3S and we want to know what they would have done in 2S, and the actual demonination of the contract -- 2S or 3S -- doesn't matter. Say it is a guess for a queen, or finding the best line of play, or finding the best defense. For example, the NOS play in 3S and go down one when they misguess the location of a queen. According to my formulation, the NOS would receive +110 for 2S. Because they misguessed the queen. In Grattan's formulation, what the NOS did in 3S is only one data point; players of like ability were equally likely to guess the queen correctly. So, in this example, the NOS would receive a split score of +110 +140, using L12C1c; or just +140 using L12C1e(i). This is my best attempt to portray Grattan's position in a fair way. So, as far as I know, Grattan's proposed definition does not fit with the decisions directors make in using L12C1c or L12C1e. Bob From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 17 07:45:49 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 17:45:49 +1100 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe's enthymeme [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), Iolanthe: STREPHON: My Lord, I know no Courts of Chancery; I go by Nature's Acts of Parliament. The bees - the breeze - the seas - the rooks - the brooks - the gales - the vales - the fountains and the mountains cry, "You love this maiden - take her, we command you!" 'Tis writ in heaven by the bright barb?d dart that leaps forth into lurid light from each grim thundercloud. The very rain pours forth her sad and sodden sympathy! When chorused Nature bids me take my love, shall I reply, "Nay, but a certain Chancellor forbids it"? Sir, you are England's Lord High Chancellor, but are you Chancellor of birds and trees, King of the winds and Prince of thunderclouds? LORD CH: No. It's a nice point. I don't know that I ever met it before. But my difficulty is that at present there's no evidence before the Court that chorused Nature has interested herself in the matter. Robert Frick asserted: >>>Grattan and I have proposed two very different definitions of >>>probability [rest of Robert Frick's lengthy posting snipped] Wikipedia: To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Richard Hills, lengthy posting not yet snipped: I agree that Yes it is true that Robert and Grattan have vastly different worldviews, but No it is false that Grattan's worldview is what Robert's chorused Nature thinks it is. Grattan proposes entirely conventional and straightforward calculations of probability, to be assessed - as Law 12B1 requires - at the moment before the infraction. Robert unLawfully suggests ex post facto probabilities, assessed many moments after the infraction, at the end of play. (a) Suppose that, due to MI from the opponents, an expert player chooses to declare 5H, when without the MI the expert player would almost certainly have bid 6H. The expert player expertly executed an Automatic Double Squeeze to make an overtrick in 5H for +680, therefore (b) The Director adjusts the expert's score to 6H for +1430. (x) Suppose that, due to MI from the opponents, Mrs Guggenheim chooses to declare 5H, when without the MI Mrs Guggenheim would almost certainly have bid 6H. Mrs Guggenheim believes that an Automatic Double Squeeze is remote controlled toothpaste, so makes exactly 11 tricks in 5H for +650. (y) The Director rules that Mrs Guggenheim is not damaged, no adjustment, leaving Mrs G's score unchanged at 5H for +650. (z) Note that for this _particular_ (a)(b)(x)(y) case-by-case example, the enthymeme assumption is that the expert player can try for the squeeze for the overtrick _without_ endangering the expert's chances of making 5H. In a different _particular_ case both the expert player and Mrs Guggenheim will make exactly 11 tricks in 5H. The expert, rather than trying the Automatic Double Squeeze which only operates if a side suit breaks 4-2 or better, instead takes a safety play* to guarantee the 5H contract even if the side suit happens to break 6-0 offside. So in this _particular_ case (z), an expert player scoring +650 in 5H may well have her score adjusted to +1430 in 6H whenever the side suit breaks 4-2 or better. * The safety play is an elimination and a (possibly unnecessary) duck in the side suit, scoring either a ruff-sluff, or RHO leads away from the second side suit trick when it breaks 6-0 offside. Ergo, Robert Frick's statement below is obviously false in some _particular_ cases. Robert Frick asserted: >>If the goal is to know what players of like ability would >>have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change when >>we observe them playing 2S or 3S. Grattan Endicott: >+=+ If to make 3S required a finesse and 2S did not, depending >on the scoring method for the competition, the temperament and >the judgement of players of like standard, a proportion (be it >high or low) of such declarers could well opt to play safely in >2S, others not. These alternative approaches and judgements must >be considered when assessing the probabilities of the various >potential outcomes. > ~ G ~ +=+ Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 17 08:15:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:15:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's a claim) In-Reply-To: <2b1e598b0903161110j3e2ceb58ma1d0cbd912a667fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <49ABFEB7.3040504@skynet.be> <1LfWDJ-16IS7k0@fwd09.aul.t-online.de> <49B8D0BE.30508@skynet.be> <00e701c9a2fa$70a7d220$0302a8c0@Mildred> <001a01c9a37c$723d9340$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49BE1A7D.6060209@skynet.be> <2b1e598b0903161110j3e2ceb58ma1d0cbd912a667fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49BF4DFE.9090909@skynet.be> Hello Jerry, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: >> Robert is right, defenders should not lose the option of accepting the >> lead from the wrong hand just because declarer claims. > > I agree with that too. > >> The original contained another twist though. In that case, claimer needs >> to learn that he has forgotten that there is a trump suit (or which one >> it is). He learns this by leading from the wrong hand, and being drawn >> attention to this. > > I am not sure what you mean by "needs to learn." > Well, for him to be able to "recover" by drawing trumps now, he needs to find out about his previous mistake. > The rest of Herman's argument seems out of step with the new laws, > which I quote here: > > "The Director should be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an > irregularity." > > "Established usage has been retained in regard to [...] `should' do > (failure to do it is an infraction jeopardizing the infractor?s rights > but not often penalized), [...] `must' do (the strongest word, a > serious matter indeed)." > I do not believe that the calling of the director is needed for claimer to "wake up". Whatever the opponents do in surprise to his leading from the wrong hand can be enough to jolt him into at least asking "I am in hand, am I not?". >> While I grant that defenders would be allowed to accept that lead from >> the wrong hand, I do not allow them to do so silently, in such a way >> that declarer does not notice. > > Herman seems to be asserting a directorial right that is not in the > laws: "The Director should be summoned at once" is not the same as > "The Director must be summoned at once." Besides, it is possible to > accept a lead without calling attention to its being from the wrong > hand. > When I say "I allow", I mean that I accept this as a possibility within the normal scope of (fictional) play after the claim. >> IOW, I do not consider it "normal" for defenders to also forget about >> the trump suit, or for them to accept a lead from the wrong hand without >> drawing attention in some way to the irregularity. And as soon as they >> draw attention to the irregularity, teh TD must be called and the >> confusion must be settled, and we must allow claimer to wake up from his >> previous state of playing the wrong contract. >> > > I am not sure why Herman put normal in quotes, but three assertions > seem wrong in that paragraph: > to emphasise that I am using the legal meaning of normal within the claim laws. > 1. "I do not consider it "normal" for defenders to [...] accept a > lead from the wrong hand without drawing attention in some way to the > irregularity." > > 2. "as soon as they draw attention to the irregularity, teh TD must > be called." > > 3. "We must allow claimer to wake up from his previous state of > playing the wrong contract." > > #1 is wrong because it happens all of the time. Perhaps 10% of all > leads out of turn are silently accepted. And you consider something that happens 10% of the time "normal"? > #2 is wrong because the law > says "should," not "must." And as said, it's not important for claimer waking up anyway. > I don't see any support for #3 in the > laws. Which law would support it? > The claim laws that state that he should be held to normal lines only. It is not normal for a player who has just cashed an ace, and thrown a heart on it, to not realise that hearts are trumps when he hears his opponents complaining when he leads a king from the same hand next. > Jerry Fusselman > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 17 08:21:11 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:21:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran nicely put: > > Richard Hills guesses: > > My guess is that the critical issue is whether declarer led from the wrong > hand before or after the claim. > > If the lead out of turn happened first, then before a defender could accept > or reject declarer's LOOT declarer claimed, my guess is that the Director > should permit the defenders to accept or reject the LOOT and only then > should the Director proceed to resolve the claim. > > > On the other hand, if declarer has not yet led out of turn, but has instead > claimed before committing an irregularity, with the claim statement > proposing > that the forthcoming first trick subsequent to the claim being a LOOT, then > it seems to me that the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001 applies: > So this means that the claimer is better off than the player, something which I am always lambasted for doing. And in this case there is absolutely no reason for accepting this. The WBFLC minute has a clear reason for being. If, alongside all the normal lines of play, we also have to consider those lines of play where claimer makes an irregularity, we should just rule all claims to be worth zero tricks. We must assume that claimers do not revoke or do not lead from the wrong hand, or the problem becomes unsolvable. BUT. If a claimer is under some false impression which makes it normal for him to make the irregularity, then that irregularity should be made. And if the WBFLC failed to include that possibility, then they were wrong in doing so and they should remedy that error. > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to > the > point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since > the > irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though > there > were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of > the > claim that he considers still to be valid." > > Richard Hills guesses: > > In the Sven scenario the Director would disregard the entire claim > statement, > since the irregularity is embodied at its beginning point. > > > 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 Tue Mar 17 08:24:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:24:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BF5045.4010005@skynet.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Sven Pran nicely put: > > Richard Hills guesses: > > My guess is that the critical issue is whether declarer led from the wrong > hand before or after the claim. > > If the lead out of turn happened first, then before a defender could accept > or reject declarer's LOOT declarer claimed, my guess is that the Director > should permit the defenders to accept or reject the LOOT and only then > should the Director proceed to resolve the claim. > > > On the other hand, if declarer has not yet led out of turn, but has instead > claimed before committing an irregularity, with the claim statement > proposing > that the forthcoming first trick subsequent to the claim being a LOOT, then > it seems to me that the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001 applies: > So this means that the claimer is better off than the player, something which I am always lambasted for doing. And in this case there is absolutely no reason for accepting this. The WBFLC minute has a clear reason for being. If, alongside all the normal lines of play, we also have to consider those lines of play where claimer makes an irregularity, we should just rule all claims to be worth zero tricks. We must assume that claimers do not revoke or do not lead from the wrong hand, or the problem becomes unsolvable. BUT. If a claimer is under some false impression which makes it normal for him to make the irregularity, then that irregularity should be made. And if the WBFLC failed to include that possibility, then they were wrong in doing so and they should remedy that error. > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to > the > point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since > the > irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though > there > were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of > the > claim that he considers still to be valid." > > Richard Hills guesses: > > In the Sven scenario the Director would disregard the entire claim > statement, > since the irregularity is embodied at its beginning point. > > > 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 Tue Mar 17 08:50:20 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:50:20 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> I have not been following this very closely, but I have a question: North (dummy) None A 2 KQJ West East 432 654 3 None None AK 2 None South AKQ None A A Hearts are trump. Declarer, who has forgotten that a defender still has a trump, spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the ace of spades discarding a diamond from dummy. He makes the rest. Right, Herman? Now, suppose declarer follows exactly the same procedure but the lead is actually in dummy. How many tricks does declarer make? Justify your ruling, especially in view of the well-known "trumps last" principle. David Burn London, England From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 17 08:59:11 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:59:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> Message-ID: <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> Sorry - too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Amend the position I just posted to: I have not been following this very closely, but I have a question: North (dummy) None A 2 KQJ West East 432 654 3 None None 43 2 None South AKQ None A A Hearts are trump. Declarer, who has forgotten that a defender still has a trump, spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the ace of spades discarding a diamond from dummy. He makes the rest. Right, Herman? Now, suppose declarer follows exactly the same procedure but the lead is actually in dummy. How many tricks does declarer make? Justify your ruling, especially in view of the well-known "trumps last" principle. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 17 10:03:01 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:03:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> Message-ID: <49BF6745.3070600@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > I have not been following this very closely, but I have a question: > > North (dummy) > None > A > 2 > KQJ > West East > 432 654 > 3 None > None AK > 2 None > South > AKQ > None > A > A > > Hearts are trump. Declarer, who has forgotten that a defender still has a > trump, spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the ace of > spades discarding a diamond from dummy. He makes the rest. Right, Herman? > I think so. He has stated the first trick, even when there is no need for that, since all other lines will also produce nothing but winners (if there were no trumps out). After that, he can play either of his four remaining winners. When he plays the diamond ace, west can ruff, and he is allowed to overruff. It doesn't matter whether he has played the club ace before that or not, he has nothing but winners on the table as well. Contract made. > Now, suppose declarer follows exactly the same procedure but the lead is > actually in dummy. How many tricks does declarer make? Justify your ruling, > especially in view of the well-known "trumps last" principle. > If the lead is in dummy, he still has stated that he shall throw the diamond on the spade ace. I don't know why he said that, but presumably his ace of diamonds is not actually an ace but a card he does not know to be high. If that is the case, then the only normal line for him is to cross to hand and throw the diamond on the ace of spades in trick two. He can only cross in clubs (not knowing the ace of diamonds to be high), and this leads to him gaining all tricks, yet again. If OTOH, the ace of diamonds is indeed an ace, or if we establish that he knows the card to be high (why then does he wish to throw the diamond?), then of course he should be judged to cross to this ace, and suffer a ruff. I do not think your example is a good one to illustrate the points being made here, though. Permit me to change a few things about it, then. Let's accept the cards as they are (with the aces representing actual cards that the claimer correctly knows to be high). With those cards, a far more believable claim statement would be "my hand is high". If declarer is in hand, that claim will be accepted. If declarer is on the table, that claim will be rejected, because one of the normal lines would be to cross to the ace of diamonds. Now the question that is dealt with in this thread is what to do if the lead is actually in hand, but claimer mistakenly believes to be on the table? It is hard to give an example where this is obvious from the claim statement, but if we give dummy the 9 of clubs in stead of the jack (with the ten dropping so the claim is still valid - but declarer does not know that), and claimer stating "I'm crossing to hand to throw the C9 on the SK", then it is clear that claimer had a wrong picture of the hand. My belief is that, if such an error is known in claimer's head, then we should allow the irregular line of playing the D2 to the DA, as being a normal one. After all, it is something declarer may well play in real life, is it not? And since it is an irregularity which can be accepted, it will be. > David Burn > London, England > Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 17 11:05:11 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:05:11 +0100 Subject: [blml] L12C1, probabilities, summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49BF75D7.8030805@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > According to my formulation, the NOS would receive +110 for 2S. Because > they misguessed the queen. In Grattan's formulation, what the NOS did in > 3S is only one data point; players of like ability were equally likely to > guess the queen correctly. So, in this example, the NOS would receive a > split score of +110 +140, using L12C1c; or just +140 using L12C1e(i). > > This is my best attempt to portray Grattan's position in a fair way. > AG : I can agree with this position, which is the statistical face of probabiliies. However, we should consider that statistics are always approximative. The fact that 6 pairs out of 10 found the winning line doesn't mean that the probabimlity of a random pair (of the same skill level) would find it is 60%. The true probability can easily be anywhere between 35% and 80% (try a binomial check). This is the traditional poll-vs-ballot problem. That's the main reason why, in assessing weighted scores, one should tilt the balance in the favor of the NOS. Best regards Alain From t.kooyman at worldonline.nl Tue Mar 17 11:54:09 2009 From: t.kooyman at worldonline.nl (ton) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:54:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> Message-ID: Is this 'my' David Burn? Of course South will ruff the second high spade with his ace. ton -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of David Burn Sent: dinsdag 17 maart 2009 8:59 To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Sorry - too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Amend the position I just posted to: I have not been following this very closely, but I have a question: North (dummy) None A 2 KQJ West East 432 654 3 None None 43 2 None South AKQ None A A Hearts are trump. Declarer, who has forgotten that a defender still has a trump, spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the ace of spades discarding a diamond from dummy. He makes the rest. Right, Herman? Now, suppose declarer follows exactly the same procedure but the lead is actually in dummy. How many tricks does declarer make? Justify your ruling, especially in view of the well-known "trumps last" principle. David Burn London, England _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 17 12:20:39 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:20:39 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Grattan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <003501c9a6f3$f7638cd0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Grattan) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > +=+ A lead out of turn by declarer may be accepted by either defender > if it is *faced*. (Law 53). ~ G ~ +=+ > > "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it > as the card he proposes to play." Law 45C4(a). > > Of course, although a claim statement names or otherwise designates a > card, "must be played" is not relevant since "play ceases". Law 68D. > +=+ And see Law 70B3 +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 17 12:31:30 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:31:30 -0000 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be><000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <49BF6745.3070600@skynet.be> Message-ID: <003601c9a6f3$f7a3f130$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > My belief is that, if such an error is known in claimer's head, then we > should allow the irregular line of playing the D2 to the DA, as being a > normal one. After all, it is something declarer may well play in real > life, is it not? And since it is an irregularity which can be accepted, > it will be. > +=+ Opponents have no power to accept now that the matter is in the Director's hands. I quote the WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 17 12:33:02 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:33:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <20090317105505.CD5B965@mach.vub.ac.be> References: <20090317105505.CD5B965@mach.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <49BF8A6E.10702@ulb.ac.be> Very interesting problem. > > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] > On Behalf Of David Burn > Sent: dinsdag 17 maart 2009 8:59 > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Sorry - too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Amend the position I just > posted to: > > I have not been following this very closely, but I have a question: > > North (dummy) > None > A > 2 > KQJ > West East > 432 654 > 3 None > None 43 > 2 None > South > AKQ > None > A > A > > Hearts are trump. Declarer, who has forgotten that a defender still has a > trump, spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the ace of > spades discarding a diamond from dummy. He makes the rest. Right, Herman? > Right for me, anyway. There is no rational way etc. Easily remediable outstanding trumps that are revealed in the course of the play on any plausibvle line are treated the same way as easily remediable bad breaks. Not overrruffing would be irrational IMOBO. > Now, suppose declarer follows exactly the same procedure but the lead is > actually in dummy. How many tricks does declarer make? Justify your ruling, > especially in view of the well-known "trumps last" principle. > Since his claim disallows him to play from dummy either a trump (general rule) or a diamond (else he wouldn't be able discard it later), the line of play stated is : Club to the Ace and Spade Ace. And every order of play works from there. But the most interesting is this : saying that he will discard a diamond on the Spade Ace is a strong hint that he knows there is an outstanding trump on his left. Else, he would just say "my hand is high". Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 17 12:49:09 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:49:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> Message-ID: <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> I think this can be modified slightly to make my point (question) even clearer: > North (dummy) > - > - > 2 > 3 > West East > - - > 3 - > - 43 > 2 - > South > - > A > A > - > Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last outstanding trump. However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is of course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last trump and then cash his Diamond Ace. But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders may accept the lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little trump? Regards Sven From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 17 13:58:23 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:58:23 -0500 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe's enthymeme [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:45:49 -0500, wrote: > > W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), Iolanthe: > > STREPHON: My Lord, I know no Courts of Chancery; I go by Nature's > Acts of Parliament. The bees - the breeze - the seas - the rooks > - the brooks - the gales - the vales - the fountains and the > mountains cry, "You love this maiden - take her, we command you!" > 'Tis writ in heaven by the bright barb?d dart that leaps forth > into lurid light from each grim thundercloud. The very rain pours > forth her sad and sodden sympathy! When chorused Nature bids me > take my love, shall I reply, "Nay, but a certain Chancellor > forbids it"? Sir, you are England's Lord High Chancellor, but are > you Chancellor of birds and trees, King of the winds and Prince of > thunderclouds? > > LORD CH: No. It's a nice point. I don't know that I ever met it > before. But my difficulty is that at present there's no evidence > before the Court that chorused Nature has interested herself in > the matter. > > Robert Frick asserted: > >>>> Grattan and I have proposed two very different definitions of >>>> probability > > [rest of Robert Frick's lengthy posting snipped] > > Wikipedia: > > To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having > refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar > proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever > having actually refuted the original position. > > Richard Hills, lengthy posting not yet snipped: > > I agree that Yes it is true that Robert and Grattan have vastly > different worldviews, but No it is false that Grattan's worldview > is what Robert's chorused Nature thinks it is. > > Grattan proposes entirely conventional and straightforward > calculations of probability, to be assessed - as Law 12B1 > requires - at the moment before the infraction. > > Robert unLawfully suggests ex post facto probabilities, assessed > many moments after the infraction, at the end of play. > > (a) Suppose that, due to MI from the opponents, an expert > player chooses to declare 5H, when without the MI the expert > player would almost certainly have bid 6H. The expert player > expertly executed an Automatic Double Squeeze to make an > overtrick in 5H for +680, therefore > > (b) The Director adjusts the expert's score to 6H for +1430. This shows a poor understanding of Grattan's method. In my method, the expert gets +1430. In Grattan's method, you have to consider what players of like ability would have done. Sometimes, the lead is wrong for a squeeze. Maybe not all players of like ability would run a squeeze. Maybe there was a choice of squeezes and the expert guessed right. If you decide that, for players of like ability, they get to run the squeeze and run the squeeze 50% of the time, that is the figure you use. The fact that this declarer is in the 50% that got the squeeze is, as Grattan says, irrelevant. > > (x) Suppose that, due to MI from the opponents, Mrs Guggenheim > chooses to declare 5H, when without the MI Mrs Guggenheim > would almost certainly have bid 6H. Mrs Guggenheim believes > that an Automatic Double Squeeze is remote controlled > toothpaste, so makes exactly 11 tricks in 5H for +650. > > (y) The Director rules that Mrs Guggenheim is not damaged, no > adjustment, leaving Mrs G's score unchanged at 5H for +650. I think Grattan's method also gets this one correct. There is little point to bring up examples where the two methods provide the same guidelines. > > (z) Note that for this _particular_ (a)(b)(x)(y) case-by-case > example, the enthymeme assumption is that the expert player can > try for the squeeze for the overtrick _without_ endangering the > expert's chances of making 5H. In a different _particular_ case > both the expert player and Mrs Guggenheim will make exactly 11 > tricks in 5H. The expert, rather than trying the Automatic > Double Squeeze which only operates if a side suit breaks 4-2 or > better, instead takes a safety play* to guarantee the 5H contract > even if the side suit happens to break 6-0 offside. So in this > _particular_ case (z), an expert player scoring +650 in 5H may > well have her score adjusted to +1430 in 6H whenever the side > suit breaks 4-2 or better. Right. This is not yet the thousandth time someone has said this, but we are working on it. My method and Grattan's method make the same predictions when the actual play of the hand is not useful to deciding what the players would have done. This posting in general, and this for example, show poor understanding of my method. > > * The safety play is an elimination and a (possibly unnecessary) > duck in the side suit, scoring either a ruff-sluff, or RHO leads > away from the second side suit trick when it breaks 6-0 offside. > > Ergo, Robert Frick's statement below is obviously false in some > _particular_ cases. Name one. > > Robert Frick asserted: > >>> If the goal is to know what players of like ability would >>> have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change when >>> we observe them playing 2S or 3S. > > Grattan Endicott: > >> +=+ If to make 3S required a finesse and 2S did not, depending >> on the scoring method for the competition, the temperament and >> the judgement of players of like standard, a proportion (be it >> high or low) of such declarers could well opt to play safely in >> 2S, others not. These alternative approaches and judgements must >> be considered when assessing the probabilities of the various >> potential outcomes. >> ~ G ~ +=+ I state Grattan's position and he provides an example consistent with his position. Since it is also my position, that doesn't get us anywhere. I think Grattan, like you, thought that my position gave a different answer in this situation (the players play 3S, it is irrelevant for determining what was likely to have happened in 2S). It does not contradict my position. It never did. I have, to my knowledge, always been clear about this from the start. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 17 14:41:21 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:41:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:49:09 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > I think this can be modified slightly to make my point (question) even > clearer: > >> North (dummy) >> - >> - >> 2 >> 3 >> West East >> - - >> 3 - >> - 43 >> 2 - >> South >> - >> A >> A >> - >> > > Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that > he > will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last > outstanding trump. > > However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the > last > previous trick with a card from his own hand. > > As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is > of > course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last > trump > and then cash his Diamond Ace. > > But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders > may > accept the lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little > trump? > > Regards Sven In rec.games.bridge, David Flower wrote: ------------------------------------ 1) It seems to me that the promulgators of the 2007 Laws would have been aware of the WBF ruling, and yet failed to insert it into the Laws; this for me carries a very significant message. 2) I can only think of two illegal plays that could be contained within a claim statement: - A revoke. The Laws specify that a revoke must be corrected if attention is drawn to it before it is established; it is unclear whether, play having ceased, a revoke could ever be established - A lead out of turn. Here, the Laws specifically allow the non- offending side to accept the lead, and I can see no reason why this (legal) option should be denied. ------------------------------------ I like his distinction between revokes and leads out of turn. Was the draft committee considering leads out of turn when it constructed this minute? From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 17 13:54:43 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:54:43 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> Message-ID: <49BF9D93.8090904@skynet.be> Very good and clear example, Sven. My vote is that he will lose a trick. If he had played it, he would have lost it. If he claims it, he should also lose it. Sven Pran wrote: > I think this can be modified slightly to make my point (question) even > clearer: > >> North (dummy) >> - >> - >> 2 >> 3 >> West East >> - - >> 3 - >> - 43 >> 2 - >> South >> - >> A >> A >> - >> > > Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he > will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last > outstanding trump. > > However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the last > previous trick with a card from his own hand. > > As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is of > course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last trump > and then cash his Diamond Ace. > > But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders may > accept the lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little > trump? > > Regards Sven > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 17 17:51:11 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:51:11 -0000 Subject: [blml] David Flower's comment Message-ID: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Message-ID: Agatha Christie, 4.50 from Paddington, Chapter 6: The inspector summed it up in an outraged voice. "You were engaged by an elderly lady to obtain a post here and to search the house and grounds for _a dead body_? Is that right?" "Yes." "Who is this elderly lady?" "Miss Jane Marple. She is at present living at 4 Madison Road." The inspector wrote it down. "You expect me to believe this story?" Lucy said gently: "Not, perhaps, until after you have interviewed Miss Marple and got her confirmation of it." "I shall interview her all right. She must be cracked." Lucy forbore to point out that to be proved right is not really a proof of mental incapacity. Max Bavin: [snip] >Please note: we're talking solely of cases where the offenders >take abnormal action in order to avoid silencing partner - not of >cases where they take a lucky punt (thereby silencing partner). [snip] WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH 1S (1) Pass 1C (2) (3) --- --- 3NT(4) Pass Pass(5) Pass (1) 12-15 hcp, 5+ spades (2) 16+ hcp, any shape (3) After the Director arrives, South declines to use Law 27A. (4) Because 1C is artificial, East may not use Law 27B1(a). East could use Law 27B1(b) by choosing a replacement call of 2NT, which in the East-West system has the "more precise meaning" of showing 16+ hcp and also 4+ spades. However, East's 17 hcp hand has a 1444 shape with a singleton spade, so East eschews 2NT as too risky, instead choosing a Law 27B2 replacement call of 3NT. (5) Law 27B2 enforced pass, reluctantly called by West, since West holds a 7-card spade suit. At all other tables the contract is 4S making nine tricks. At this table 3NT is cold for nine tricks. The score cannot be adjusted under Law 27D, since it begins with: "If following the application of B1....." and the actual Law 27 application was B2. 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 Mar 18 01:37:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:37:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Iolanthe's enthymeme [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The House of Peers asserted correlations meant causation: When Britain really ruled the waves - (In good Queen Bess's time) The House of Peers made no pretence To intellectual eminence, Or scholarship sublime; Yet Britain won her proudest bays In good Queen Bess's glorious days! When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte, As every child can tell, The House of Peers, throughout the war, Did nothing in particular, And did it very well: Yet Britain set the world ablaze In good King George's glorious days! Robert Frick asserted consequence meant correlations: >>>If the goal is to know what players of like ability would >>>have done in 2S, the actual probabilities doesn't change >>>when we observe them playing 2S or 3S. Richard Hills (1959- ), quibbled: >>Ergo, Robert Frick's statement above is obviously false in >>some _particular_ cases. Robert Frick led with chin: >Name one. Richard Hills (1959- ), repeat extract from 16th March posting: If in a matchpoint pairs event LHO has Paused for thought, and RHO has not thought enough about lack of (Law 73C) propriety, but instead RHO gained notoriety by automatically bidding 3H rather than the true (Law 16) religion of RHO passing, then you may find yourself declaring 3S, not your preferred contract of 2S. In 3S you Pause for thought, and analyse the only two sensible lines: Line A 75% of the time you are three off: -300 25% of the time you are one off: -100 Line B 100% of the time you are two off: -200 Since, at matchpoint pairs, a score of -200 or worse in a competitive partscore auction is the Kiss of Death, you elect to try Line A. It is your lucky day, -100. Now the Director arrives at the table, and cancels RHO's 3H impiety, then the Director Pauses for thought about the two sensible lines in the one-level-lower contract of 2S: Line A 75% of the time you are two off: -200 25% of the time you make exactly: +110 Line B 100% of the time you are one off: -100 The odds have changed. In 2S (not 3S) Line A is now the less attractive line, since it is worth a near-bottom 75% of the time and a near-top a mere 25% of the time. Meanwhile, in 2S (not 3S) Line B is now the more attractive line, since it is worth a near-average 100% of the time. Ergo, after her Pause for thought, the Director adjusts the score from 8 tricks in 3S -100 to 7 tricks in 2S -100. The Economist 5th March 2009, repeat extract of quote: ...after that, he says, "most outside people will stay away from the thread, and further growth will come from people already inside that thread carrying forth a discussion, debate, or argument."... Richard Hills (1959- ): Since the rest of blml seems bored with this topic, as only Robert Frick and myself are continuing to repeatedly reiterate the same and tautological points in our debate of this issue (unfortunately from different worldview axioms, the Euclidean versus non-Euclidean geometry which has bedevilled past debates between me and Adam Wildavsky or me and Herman De Wael), I will now continue exploring this issue privately offlist with Robert Frick. However, if something new emerges from our private debate, rather than mere restatement of our previous positions, no doubt Robert or myself will return to blml to reveal the new concept. 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 Mar 18 04:32:53 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:32:53 +1100 Subject: [blml] David Flower's comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott asked: >Where do the laws specifically allow of the acceptance of a lead >that has not been faced? Law 41A: "...The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2)..." Richard Hills: Some time ago at the South Canberra Bridge Club, the correct opening leader was the President, and he correctly selected his opening lead and correctly placed it face-down on the table. Then he changed his mind, returned his correct face-down opening lead to his hand, and selected a different card for his opening lead, which he also placed face-down on the table. The opponents summoned the Assistant Director (the South Canberra Bridge Club usually, except for championship events, does not have a non-playing Director, so the President himself was the Director in charge). I ruled that under Law 41A the President was required to retract his second face-down opening lead to his hand, and instead face his original face-down opening lead. I also ruled that the fact that the President had dithered on opening lead was AI to the President's RHO declarer, but UI to the President's First Lady. 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 Mar 18 05:35:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:35:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Herman) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49BF4DFE.9090909@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael nicely put: >The claim laws that state that he should be held to normal lines >only. It is not normal for a player who has just cashed an ace, >and thrown a heart on it, to not realise that hearts are trumps >when he hears his opponents complaining when he leads a king >from the same hand next. Richard Hills agrees: I agree. 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 08:18:20 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:18:20 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49BF9D93.8090904@skynet.be> References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> <49BF9D93.8090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: 2009/3/17 Herman De Wael : > Very good and clear example, Sven. > My vote is that he will lose a trick. If he had played it, he would have > lost it. If he claims it, he should also lose it. Clarification needed, Herman. Did you vote as you understand the 2007 laws or as you want a future revision of the laws to be? > > Sven Pran wrote: >> I think this can be modified slightly to make my point (question) even >> clearer: >> >>> ? ? ? ? ? North (dummy) >>> ? ? ? ? ? - >>> ? ? ? ? ? - >>> ? ? ? ? ? 2 >>> ? ? ? ? ? 3 >>> West ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? East >>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- >>> 3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- >>> - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 43 >>> 2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- >>> ? ? ? ? ? South >>> ? ? ? ? ? - >>> ? ? ? ? ? A >>> ? ? ? ? ? A >>> ? ? ? ? ? - >>> >> >> Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he >> will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last >> outstanding trump. >> >> However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the last >> previous trick with a card from his own hand. >> >> As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is of >> course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last trump >> and then cash his Diamond Ace. >> >> But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders may >> accept the lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little >> trump? >> >> Regards Sven >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 18 08:25:02 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:25:02 +0100 Subject: [blml] David Flower's comment [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: 2009/3/18 : > Grattan Endicott asked: > >>Where do the laws specifically allow of the acceptance of a lead >>that has not been faced? > > Law 41A: > > "...The face-down lead may be withdrawn only upon instruction of > the Director after an irregularity (see Law 47E2)..." Richard, this is completely irrelevant. The "lead" in question was part of a claim statement, not an unfaced physical lead. > > Richard Hills: > > Some time ago at the South Canberra Bridge Club, the correct > opening leader was the President, and he correctly selected his > opening lead and correctly placed it face-down on the table. > > Then he changed his mind, returned his correct face-down opening > lead to his hand, and selected a different card for his opening > lead, which he also placed face-down on the table. > > The opponents summoned the Assistant Director (the South Canberra > Bridge Club usually, except for championship events, does not have > a non-playing Director, so the President himself was the Director > in charge). > > I ruled that under Law 41A the President was required to retract > his second face-down opening lead to his hand, and instead face > his original face-down opening lead. ?I also ruled that the fact > that the President had dithered on opening lead was AI to the > President's RHO declarer, but UI to the President's First Lady. > > > 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 Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 18 09:03:22 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:03:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be> <000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no> <49BF9D93.8090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49C0AACA.1040406@skynet.be> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/3/17 Herman De Wael : >> Very good and clear example, Sven. >> My vote is that he will lose a trick. If he had played it, he would have >> lost it. If he claims it, he should also lose it. > > Clarification needed, Herman. Did you vote as you understand the 2007 > laws or as you want a future revision of the laws to be? > I vote as I understand the 2007 laws to be. Also as I understood the 1997 laws to be. I do not believe that a WBFLC interpretation, which is written in 1000 times more hurry than a lawbook, should be used beyond its original scope. That scope was about revokes, even if they did use the word irregularities. Nothing is said in the interpretation about the state of mind of claimer (just that he cannot revoke). I do not agree with Grattan that nothing was changed to the 2007 laws because they did not feel a change was needed. If an interpretation is needed to clarify some text, then the least the WBFLC could do is to clarify that text the next time they come around to it. It seems as particularly odd to me that a line which a player tells us he's going to follow should be deemed "not normal" when nothing has been changed in claimers mind to change his decision to follow the line. It seems as totally unfair to me that a player who plays a card should suffer more harshly than someone who says "I'll play that card". I have been criticised in the past for allowing too many claims, and here I'm on the other side - strange! >> Sven Pran wrote: >>> I think this can be modified slightly to make my point (question) even >>> clearer: >>> >>>> North (dummy) >>>> - >>>> - >>>> 2 >>>> 3 >>>> West East >>>> - - >>>> 3 - >>>> - 43 >>>> 2 - >>>> South >>>> - >>>> A >>>> A >>>> - >>>> >>> Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he >>> will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last >>> outstanding trump. >>> >>> However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the last >>> previous trick with a card from his own hand. >>> >>> As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is of >>> course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last trump >>> and then cash his Diamond Ace. >>> >>> But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders may >>> accept the lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little >>> trump? >>> >>> Regards Sven >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> blml mailing list >>> blml at amsterdamned.org >>> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > > From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Wed Mar 18 09:45:03 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:45:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49BF8A6E.10702@ulb.ac.be> References: <20090317105505.CD5B965@mach.vub.ac.be> <49BF8A6E.10702@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <49C0B48F.2050306@jldata.fi> I can't understand, why he should all tricks. 1) If he really is his hand. After spade ace it is irrational block clubs, so he can take club ace, after that he can ruff high spades. One off 2) lead is dummy The only way to discard dia to spades according claim statement is play club, spade ace and dia discard, then he can ruff spade, one off. Juuso Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Very interesting problem. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] >> On Behalf Of David Burn >> Sent: dinsdag 17 maart 2009 8:59 >> To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> Sorry - too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Amend the position I just >> posted to: >> >> I have not been following this very closely, but I have a question: >> >> North (dummy) >> None >> A >> 2 >> KQJ >> West East >> 432 654 >> 3 None >> None 43 >> 2 None >> South >> AKQ >> None >> A >> A >> >> Hearts are trump. Declarer, who has forgotten that a defender still has a >> trump, spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the ace of >> spades discarding a diamond from dummy. He makes the rest. Right, Herman? >> >> > Right for me, anyway. There is no rational way etc. Easily remediable > outstanding trumps that are revealed in the course of the play on any > plausibvle line are treated the same way as easily remediable bad > breaks. Not overrruffing would be irrational IMOBO. > > >> Now, suppose declarer follows exactly the same procedure but the lead is >> actually in dummy. How many tricks does declarer make? Justify your ruling, >> especially in view of the well-known "trumps last" principle. >> >> > Since his claim disallows him to play from dummy either a trump (general > rule) or a diamond (else he wouldn't be able discard it later), the line > of play stated is : Club to the Ace and Spade Ace. And every order of > play works from there. > > But the most interesting is this : saying that he will discard a > diamond on the Spade Ace is a strong hint that he knows there is an > outstanding trump on his left. Else, he would just say "my hand is high". > > Best regards > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 18 10:08:56 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:08:56 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. Message-ID: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott <49BF4F67.4020703@skynet.be><000001c9a6d5$058f1dc0$10ad5940$@com> <000101c9a6d6$424685e0$c6d391a0$@com> <000001c9a6f6$623eac90$26bc05b0$@no><49BF9D93.8090904@skynet.be> <49C0AACA.1040406@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002101c9a7ab$5b3388c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [blml] A nice one (yes it's Sven) [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > I vote as I understand the 2007 laws to be. > Also as I understood the 1997 laws to be. > I do not believe that a WBFLC interpretation, which is > written in 1000 times more hurry than a lawbook, should > be used beyond its original scope. That scope was about > revokes, even if they did use the word irregularities. < +=+ Where the laws say 'for example' does Herman argue that the particular law applies only to the matter in the example? Herman and others find the minute too sweeping in its effects. We have to take it as it was written. The WBFLC may decide to review it, as for example :-) by including a provision that the Director may accept the first lead in the statement when it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage. But I make no prediction. Draft minutes are reviewed by the chairman and committee before they are set in stone. Herman's '1000 times' is an illusion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 18 10:43:21 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:43:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> We understood! Copy Sven's example - it is clear and without clutter. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ Thanks to RF who has noted that in saying > " I plan to invite the WBFLC to consider whether > it wishes to modify its 2001 interpretation. The > subject is listed for Beijing." I did mean Sao Paulo. > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 18 11:03:49 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:03:49 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. < +=+ I am not sure which example Herman means. I have found one with a reference to 'defenders' accepting the lead but this is outwith the law. The Director is adjudicating the claim under Law 70 and defenders have no power to accept or reject. They may have stated an objection at a prior point in the procedure. The Director must determine what he will or will not accept. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > We understood! > Copy Sven's example - it is clear and without clutter. > > Grattan wrote: >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " God has delegated himself to a >> million deputies." - Emerson. >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> +=+ Thanks to RF who has noted that in saying >> " I plan to invite the WBFLC to consider whether >> it wishes to modify its 2001 interpretation. The >> subject is listed for Beijing." I did mean Sao Paulo. >> ~ G ~ +=+ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> blml mailing list >> blml at amsterdamned.org >> http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 18 12:19:03 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:19:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49C0D8A7.30503@skynet.be> I meant this example: North (dummy) - - 2 3 West East - 3 2 3 - - - 4 - South - A A - Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last outstanding trump. However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is of course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last trump and then cash his Diamond Ace. But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders may accept the lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little trump? Regards Sven Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ************************************ " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:43 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. < +=+ I am not sure which example > Herman means. I have found one with a reference to 'defenders' > accepting the lead but this is outwith the law. The Director is > adjudicating the claim under Law 70 and defenders have no power to > accept or reject. They may have stated an objection at a prior point > in the procedure. The Director must determine what he will or will > not accept. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > >> We understood! Copy Sven's example - it is clear and without >> clutter. >> >> Grattan wrote: >>> Grattan Endicott>> >> has delegated himself to a million deputies." - Emerson. >>> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>> >>> >>> +=+ Thanks to RF who has noted that in saying " I plan to invite >>> the WBFLC to consider whether it wishes to modify its 2001 >>> interpretation. The subject is listed for Beijing." I did mean >>> Sao Paulo. ~ G ~ +=+ >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Mar 18 12:26:51 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:26:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > +=+ I am not sure which example Herman means. I have > found one with a reference to 'defenders' accepting the lead > but this is outwith the law. The Director is adjudicating the > claim under Law 70 and defenders have no power to accept > or reject. They may have stated an objection at a prior point > in the procedure. The Director must determine what he will > or will not accept. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I feel pretty certain this is the example: > North (dummy) > - > - > 2 > 3 > West East > - - > 3 - > - 43 > 2 - > South > - > A > A > - > Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then pull the last outstanding trump. However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. As he announced that he was aware of the outstanding trump his claim is of course good as such. Playing from his hand he will first pull the last trump and then cash his Diamond Ace. But is he bound by his own claim statement to the extent that defenders may accept the announced lead out of turn from dummy and get a trick for their little trump? Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 18 14:03:38 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:03:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] And I was playing this one! Message-ID: <49C0F12A.7080209@skynet.be> Yesterday someone claimed against me: dummy - J - Qxx me - x 6 xx declarer-claimer - Kx JT - Diamond contract. Declarer had just finessed my heart queen and was on the table, when he claimed "all are mine". When I showed my six of trumps, he admitted having forgotten that. But could I get a trick with it? I'm trying to get inside his head, and let's assume that the following are true: - declarer believes trumps have all gone. - he knows the jack of hearts to be second high - he knows the king of hearts is high - he knows the queen of clubs is high I cannot say for certain whether he believes his second heart could be high (if he were to overtake the jack with the king). I'm not even certain myself that it is! I cannot say either whether the other clubs are high - I believe they are not. I think the only normal line for him is to play the queen of clubs, throwing a heart, and then the jack of hearts, overtaking with the king. Which brings him 4 tricks. Which is what I wanted to give him at the table, but he insisted I get one trick. OK, he can overtake the jack and play the presumed last heart, which I ruff. So I did not object. But do we agree that when a player is substantially more certain of one high card (CQ) than of another (Hx), then it is not normal for him to play the other one? Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 18 15:28:31 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 09:28:31 -0500 Subject: [blml] David Flower's comment In-Reply-To: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:51:11 -0500, Grattan wrote: > Where do the laws specifically allow of the acceptance > of a lead that has not been faced? I once had an opponent who was busy with something and to save time announced which card he was going to lead. (This was opening lead, but a lead during the hand works better for this example.) I could not accept this lead, had it been out of turn? And while we are on the subject, suppose I say I am going to play the two of hearts. Do I have to do it? And suppose then a revoke is corrected on the previous card played. Am I allowed to change my designation? Bob From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Mar 18 14:40:06 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:40:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] And I was playing this one! In-Reply-To: <49C0F12A.7080209@skynet.be> References: <49C0F12A.7080209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49C0F9B6.4030806@ulb.ac.be> Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Yesterday someone claimed against me: > > dummy > - > J > - > Qxx > me > - > x > 6 > xx > declarer-claimer > - > Kx > JT > - > > Diamond contract. > Declarer had just finessed my heart queen and was on the table, when he > claimed "all are mine". > When I showed my six of trumps, he admitted having forgotten that. > > > I think the only normal line for him is to play the queen of clubs, > throwing a heart, and then the jack of hearts, overtaking with the king. > Which brings him 4 tricks. > Which is what I wanted to give him at the table, but he insisted I get > one trick. > OK, he can overtake the jack and play the presumed last heart, which I > ruff. So I did not object. > AG : IMNSHO, this is a perfectly possible line of play, surely not "irrational", so it has to be taken into account. One trick to the defense. > But do we agree that when a player is substantially more certain of one > high card (CQ) than of another (Hx), then it is not normal for him to > play the other one? > AG : "more certain" doens't mean anymore than "more pregnant". If declarer thinks there is 90% probability that his CQ is high, and 70% that his Hx will be high, playing for the second is inferior, not irrational. Whence it's one possible line of play according to claim assessment standards. But, more that this, it is possible that declarer didn't see the necessity of discarding a heart. Especially as he didn't state it. Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 18 14:55:48 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:55:48 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> Message-ID: <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:26 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > On Behalf Of Grattan >> +=+ I am not sure which example Herman means. I have >> found one with a reference to 'defenders' accepting the lead >> but this is outwith the law. The Director is adjudicating the >> claim under Law 70 and defenders have no power to accept >> or reject. They may have stated an objection at a prior point >> in the procedure. The Director must determine what he will >> or will not accept. > > I feel pretty certain this is the example: > > Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing > that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then > pull the last outstanding trump. This trick will be ruffed. > > However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won > the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. > +=+ An interesting situation. The proposed lead is not 'detached from the hand' and faced as a lead but is faced as part of dummy. In the statement of claim the card from dummy is not 'called' (Law 46A) but 'proposed' (Law 68C). An irregularity is proposed but the 2001 minute does not allow the Director to accept an irregularity in a statement of claim. For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. As a personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered for relaxing the provision in the minute in the case of the first lead in the statement of the order in which cards will be played. Whether this modification will gain a consensus in the WBFLC one does not know. For the record I quote the minute again, also a potential modification: ........................................................................................................ WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." Possible addition in Sao Paulo 2009: "However, the Director may accept the first lead in the statement when it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage." ..................................................................................................... Minute from Sao Paulo could be: "The committee agrees that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since he may not accept the irregularity, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. However, the Director may accept the first lead in the statement when it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage." '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 18 15:19:15 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:19:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] And I was playing this one! References: <49C0F12A.7080209@skynet.be> <49C0F9B6.4030806@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <34836E0D2A1D4BA999A7FBE264FABB59@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Gottcheiner" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 1:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] And I was playing this one! Herman De Wael a ?crit : > Yesterday someone claimed against me: > > dummy > - > J > - > Qxx > me > - > x > 6 > xx > declarer-claimer > - > Kx > JT > - > > Diamond contract. > Declarer had just finessed my heart queen and was on the table, when he > claimed "all are mine". > When I showed my six of trumps, he admitted having forgotten that. > > > I think the only normal line for him is to play the queen of clubs, > throwing a heart, and then the jack of hearts, overtaking with the king. > Which brings him 4 tricks. > Which is what I wanted to give him at the table, but he insisted I get > one trick. I think he's right. I'd have done the same, there's some doubt and that's sufficient. "Doubtful points in favoUr of the NO ...." > OK, he can overtake the jack and play the presumed last heart, which I > ruff. So I did not object. > AG : IMNSHO, this is a perfectly possible line of play, surely not "irrational", so it has to be taken into account. One trick to the defense. > But do we agree that when a player is substantially more certain of one > high card (CQ) than of another (Hx), then it is not normal for him to > play the other one? > AG : "more certain" doens't mean anymore than "more pregnant". If declarer thinks there is 90% probability that his CQ is high, and 70% that his Hx will be high, playing for the second is inferior, not irrational. Whence it's one possible line of play according to claim assessment standards. But, more that this, it is possible that declarer didn't see the necessity of discarding a heart. Especially as he didn't state it. Best regards Alain _______________________________________________ blml mailing list blml at amsterdamned.org http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From john at asimere.com Wed Mar 18 15:20:31 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:20:31 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <24D55FFF20B44FCAA0D571D7A72DDE2A@JOHN> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan" To: "blml" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 9:08 AM Subject: [blml] Senior moment. > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > +=+ Thanks to RF who has noted that in saying > " I plan to invite the WBFLC to consider whether > it wishes to modify its 2001 interpretation. The > subject is listed for Beijing." I did mean Sao Paulo. It's ok Grattan, other side of the Channel, all the same. John > ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Mar 18 15:47:57 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:47:57 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000801c9a7d8$874c7840$95e568c0$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan ........... > > I feel pretty certain this is the example: > > > > Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing > > that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then > > pull the last outstanding trump. This trick will be ruffed. > > > > However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won > > the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. > > > +=+ An interesting situation. The proposed lead is not 'detached from > the hand' and faced as a lead but is faced as part of dummy. In the > statement of claim the card from dummy is not 'called' (Law 46A) but > 'proposed' (Law 68C). An irregularity is proposed but the 2001 minute > does not allow the Director to accept an irregularity in a statement of > claim. On a point of order I feel that whether the announced lead is out of turn from the faced hand (dummy) or from the closed hand (declarer) should not be relevant. Nor does it appear to me that your suggested modification to the WBFLC minute below depends on this question? Regards Sven > For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. As a > personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered for relaxing > the provision in the minute in the case of the first lead in the statement > of the order in which cards will be played. Whether this modification > will gain a consensus in the WBFLC one does not know. For the > record I quote the minute again, also a potential modification: > ............................................................................ ............................ > > WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: > ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not > to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." > > Possible addition in Sao Paulo 2009: > "However, the Director may accept the first lead in the statement > when it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage." > ............................................................................ ......................... > Minute from Sao Paulo could be: > "The committee agrees that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since he may not accept > the irregularity, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. However, > the Director may accept the first lead in the statement when > it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage." > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Mar 18 16:52:34 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:52:34 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be> No Grattan, because you cover only this one case. There is the other one of the player who says he's going to revoke from a hand that is deficient (so that claimer does not know he revokes). I would put it like this: When assessing whether a line is "normal", one has to judge this from the frame of mind of the claimer. Irregularities are not to be considered, except when in the frame of mind they do not constitute an irregularity. Examples: leads from the wrong hand are not to be considered, except when claimer thinks he's in the wrong hand to start with. Revokes are not normal, except when a claimer has a card too few (or too many) in either hand. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sven Pran" > To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 11:26 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >>> +=+ I am not sure which example Herman means. I have >>> found one with a reference to 'defenders' accepting the lead >>> but this is outwith the law. The Director is adjudicating the >>> claim under Law 70 and defenders have no power to accept >>> or reject. They may have stated an objection at a prior point >>> in the procedure. The Director must determine what he will >>> or will not accept. >> I feel pretty certain this is the example: >> >> Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing >> that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then >> pull the last outstanding trump. This trick will be ruffed. >> >> However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won >> the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. >> > +=+ An interesting situation. The proposed lead is not 'detached from > the hand' and faced as a lead but is faced as part of dummy. In the > statement of claim the card from dummy is not 'called' (Law 46A) but > 'proposed' (Law 68C). An irregularity is proposed but the 2001 minute > does not allow the Director to accept an irregularity in a statement of > claim. > For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. As a > personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered for relaxing > the provision in the minute in the case of the first lead in the statement > of the order in which cards will be played. Whether this modification > will gain a consensus in the WBFLC one does not know. For the > record I quote the minute again, also a potential modification: > ........................................................................................................ > > WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: > ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not > to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." > > Possible addition in Sao Paulo 2009: > "However, the Director may accept the first lead in the statement > when it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage." > ..................................................................................................... > Minute from Sao Paulo could be: > "The committee agrees that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since he may not accept > the irregularity, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid. However, > the Director may accept the first lead in the statement when > it is from the wrong hand if this is not to claimer's advantage." > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 18 17:47:44 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:47:44 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no><003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > No Grattan, because you cover only this one case. There > is the other one of the player who says he's going to revoke > from a hand that is deficient (so that claimer does not know he revokes). > +=+ I have no intention of suggesting to colleagues that, in relation to the minute, they might reconsider anything other than the Director's powers concerning the first card played. In fact I am quite sure the intention was/is not to allow of a revoke, inadvertent or otherwise, in adjudicating a claim. Neither a revoke nor a lead from the wrong hand is 'normal' play and I am far from certain that they will wish to move at all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 18 18:05:25 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:05:25 -0000 Subject: [blml] David Flower's comment References: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <002601c9a7eb$bd354d70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [blml] David Flower's comment > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:51:11 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > >> Where do the laws specifically allow of the >> acceptance of a lead that has not been faced? > > I once had an opponent who was busy with something and to save time announced which card he was going to lead. (This was opening lead, but a lead during the hand works better for this example.) > I could not accept this lead, had it been out of turn? > +=+ Please read exactly what the law says. I would recommend that you wait patiently until the card is detached from the hand and faced before following to the trick. Otherwise the player may seek to treat the card he has named as Law 49 provides. ~ G ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 18 21:29:18 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:29:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <13BD3488-4CD5-4C08-90FA-DCE40CBFE7F3@starpower.net> On Mar 18, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Grattan wrote: > From: "Sven Pran" > >> On Behalf Of Grattan >> >>> +=+ I am not sure which example Herman means. I have >>> found one with a reference to 'defenders' accepting the lead >>> but this is outwith the law. The Director is adjudicating the >>> claim under Law 70 and defenders have no power to accept >>> or reject. They may have stated an objection at a prior point >>> in the procedure. The Director must determine what he will >>> or will not accept. >> >> I feel pretty certain this is the example: >> >> Hearts are trump. Declarer spreads his hand and claims, announcing >> that he will play the small diamond from Dummy to his Ace and then >> pull the last outstanding trump. This trick will be ruffed. >> >> However, the lead from dummy will be a lead out of turn as he won >> the last previous trick with a card from his own hand. > > +=+ An interesting situation. The proposed lead is not 'detached from > the hand' and faced as a lead but is faced as part of dummy. In the > statement of claim the card from dummy is not 'called' (Law 46A) but > 'proposed' (Law 68C). An irregularity is proposed but the 2001 minute > does not allow the Director to accept an irregularity in a > statement of > claim. > For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. > As a > personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered for > relaxing > the provision in the minute in the case of the first lead in the > statement > of the order in which cards will be played. Whether this modification > will gain a consensus in the WBFLC one does not know. For the > record I quote the minute again, also a potential modification: > ...................................................................... > .................................. > > WBFLC minute of 1 Nov 2001: > ""The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is > an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director > follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity > (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not > to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were > no statement of claim but should take into account any later > part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." Well, it seems the WBFLC has done it again. If we were to take TFLB at face value, we would obviously incorporate any irregularity specified in the original statement into the adjudicated result. Irregularities are, of course, not "normal", but "normal" is a consideration only when evaluating "line[s] of play not embraced in the original clarification statement" [L70D1]. So the 2001 minute represents a substantive change to the claim law in both its 1997 and its 2008 versions. One which was *not* incorporated into the text of the 2008 lawbook. Now Grattan has made it clear that when the WBFLC issues a minute that substantively changes a law, then repeats the wording of that law in a subsequent lawbook, that the minute is to be considered still in force -- IOW, we are to assume that the failure to change the text appropriately was the result of inattention, not conscious choice. Had he not made this clear, we would naturally assume that the failure to incorporate the change in the new laws meant that the lawmakers had decided not to propagate it. Which is, of course, what anyone not privy to Grattan's explication on BLML will assume. Unless the WBFLC issues a new, post-2008-lawbook, minute, and, this time, actually lets people know about it. You'd think they actual *prefer* to keep their laws in the leopard-loo. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 18 23:09:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:09:03 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred><000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no><003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> <13BD3488-4CD5-4C08-90FA-DCE40CBFE7F3@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002601c9a816$293b0350$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. >> > Which is, of course, what anyone not privy to Grattan's > explication on BLML will assume. > Unless the WBFLC issues a new, post-2008-lawbook, > minute, and, this time, actually lets people know about it. > You'd think they actual *prefer* to keep their laws in > the leopard-loo. > +=+ Eric puts words into my mouth that I have not uttered. My 'explication' was based upon the view taken when the minute was agreed that if a statement of claim involves an irregularity it grinds to a halt at that point, lacking a legal way forward. Minutes are published on the WBF website and on the ecats website. CTDs of NBOs have access to them accordingly, as indeed do other TDs. Subscribers to blml also know where to find them. We must wait to see what the WBFLC will minute in Sao Paulo but no doubt subscribers here will make a point of reading it. . ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 18 23:25:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:25:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <13BD3488-4CD5-4C08-90FA-DCE40CBFE7F3@starpower.net> Message-ID: Lois McMaster Bujold, The Warrior's Apprentice, Chapter 20: They found a coil of wire in the roomy janitor's closet. "Murder!" shrieked Calhoun as they approached him with it. Miles gagged him; his eyes rolled whitely. By the time they finished all the extra loops and knots just in case, the salvage operator began to resemble a bright orange mummy. "The valise, Ivan," Miles ordered. His cousin opened it, and they began stuffing Calhoun's shirt and sarong rope with bundles of Betan dollars. "... thirty-eight, thirty-nine, forty thousand," Miles counted. Ivan scratched his head. "Y'know, there's something backwards about this ..." Calhoun was rolling his eyes and moaning urgently. Miles ungagged him for a moment. "--plus ten percent!" Calhoun panted. Miles gagged him again and counted out another four thousand dollars. Eric Landau thinks there's something backwards about the WBF LC: [snip] >Now Grattan has made it clear that when the WBF LC issues a >minute that substantively changes a law, then repeats the >wording of that law in a subsequent lawbook, that the minute is >to be considered still in force -- in other words, we are to >assume that the failure to change the text appropriately was >the result of inattention, not conscious choice. Had he not >made this clear, we would naturally assume that the failure to >incorporate the change in the new laws meant that the lawmakers >had decided not to propagate it. Which is, of course, what >anyone not privy to Grattan's explication on BLML will assume. >Unless the WBF LC issues a new, post-2008-lawbook, minute, and, >this time, actually lets people know about it. You'd think >they actual *prefer* to keep their laws in the leopard-loo. Grattan Endicott, personal opinion: [snip] >>For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. As >>a personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered >>for relaxing the provision in the minute in the case of the >>first lead in the statement of the order in which cards will >>be played. Whether this modification will gain a consensus in >>the WBF LC one does not know. [snip] >>Possible addition in Sao Paulo 2009: >>"However, the Director may accept the first lead in the >>statement when it is from the wrong hand if this is not to >>claimer's advantage." [snip] >>+=+ I have no intention of suggesting to colleagues that, in >>relation to the minute, they might reconsider anything other >>than the Director's powers concerning the first card played. >>In fact I am quite sure the intention was/is not to allow of a >>revoke, inadvertent or otherwise, in adjudicating a claim. >>Neither a revoke nor a lead from the wrong hand is 'normal' >>play and I am far from certain that they will wish to move at >>all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills, senior moment: For many decades my excuses for my senior moments, entering my second childhood before leaving my first, have been that I am as old as the Hills. This as old as the Hills excuse will gain greater validity on May Day this year, when I celebrate my semi- centenary. My latest senior moment is the doddering belief that while the WBF Laws Committee has the ultimate power to interpret the Laws (subject to approval of its decisions by the WBF Executive), it lacks any power to change the Laws -- unlike the power exercised by Adam Wildavsky. :-( Law 70D1: "The Director shall not accept from claimer 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." Richard Hills, mutatis mutandis: A logical transposition of the elements of Law 70D1 is: "The Director shall accept from claimer the only normal* (and successful) line of play because the original clarification statement was abnormal*." Ergo, Grattan proposes to bring his idea to the wrong venue; it should be brought before the WBF Drafting Committee instead, which does have the power to change the Lawbook (again subject to approval of the WBF Executive), as the WBF Drafting Committee did when it revised Law 27 in 2008. Alternatively, Grattan could fast-track his proposal by using the venue of Adam Wildavsky, who would immediately create a new edition of the ACBL Lawbook with (in)appropriate wording. 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 Mar 19 04:01:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:01:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sue Nicholson : > [Stats from 1991, comments from an old post] > > Age Cohort Injury Death Rate % male > per 100,000 > > <1 16.6 53.7 > 1-4 11.2 60.1 > 5-9 8.3 58.4 > > OK, an adult looking at this might think "Well, at least >they get better at avoiding risks, although males get better slower. >Things can only get better for the wee tykes." > > Then puberty begins to erode the human mind. > > 10-14 11.4 68.6 > > Note that toddlers are better at assessing risk than young >adolescents and gosh, male adolescents are really bad at it. > > But it gets worse. > > 15-19 49.7 77.1 > > At this point, accidental death accounts for almost >73% of deaths in that age group and once again, males are in the >slow class. Many of them may have lost their opposable thumbs at >this point and certainly the power of coherent speech as well. > >--------- >Me: >According to a presentation I went to at a University Health and >Safety Conference, the rational part of the brain is being rewired >in the teens and up to age 25, and a lot of thinking is essentially >rerouted through the parts that deal with emotion. In the context >of University students risk assessments, this means that an >intellectual understanding of risk has very little effect on >behaviour. Richard Hills: This suggests that Directors at University or Youth Bridge Championships should assess Law 16 adjusted scores on the basis that the offending geeks (especially the male geeks) belong to the class of player that will take insanely anti-percentage actions. Indeed, when I was a geek playing in Youth Bridge Championships, I often dropped into the dung due to my insane anti-percentage action of using Fertiliser Bids in a home-grown Forcing Pass system. But some of my opponents were also geeks insanely using Forcing Pass. One memorable auction commenced: SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST Steve Hurley Richard Hills Pass (1) Pass (1) 1C (2) Double (2) (1) Forcing Pass, opening values or better (2) Artificial game force After a few rounds where both sides were running game force relay auctions, I brought an end to proceedings with a penalty double for +800. The problem was that East-West had given insufficient thought to the definitions in their system. While an Opening Pass was Forcing in the East-West methods, the male geek sitting West thought that he was Overcalling his Pass. :-) :-) Best wishes Richard Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Mar 19 10:19:53 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:19:53 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no><003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be> <002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49C20E39.9000806@skynet.be> Grattan misunderstands my concern. Consider the following three cases: 1) Declarer claims, stating "I'll ruff the third spade". However, there are three spades in dummy, so this statement clearly breaks down quite early. The statement is not to be followed, and all normal lines must be considered. 2) Declarer claims, stating "I'll ruff the third spade". However, there are three spades in dummy, one of which is covered by the other two. This statement breaks down a little later on. The statement shall be followed by playing the first two rounds of spades, after which it becomes obvious that the statement breaks down. All normal lines will be considered from then on, and the third spade is not considered played (it may be taken into account if that line is a normal one). 3) Declarer claims, stating "I'll ruff the third spade". However, there are three spades in dummy, one of which is lying on the floor. This statement never breaks down. It will be quite normal for this player to actually ruff the third spade, and to discover later on that dummy is lacking a card, after which a revoke ruling shall be needed. I fail to see why a series of happenings that are quite likely to actually occur at the table if play were to continue, should be disregarded in dealing with the claim. I completely agree that revoking is not normal, but not following suit from a hand of 12 cards is, IMO, a normal line of play. I would urge Grattan to include the above example in his question to the WBFLC in Sao Paulo. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 3:52 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > > >> No Grattan, because you cover only this one case. There >> is the other one of the player who says he's going to revoke >> from a hand that is deficient (so that claimer does not know > he revokes). > +=+ I have no intention of suggesting to colleagues that, > in relation to the minute, they might reconsider anything > other than the Director's powers concerning the first card > played. In fact I am quite sure the intention was/is not to > allow of a revoke, inadvertent or otherwise, in adjudicating > a claim. Neither a revoke nor a lead from the wrong hand > is 'normal' play and I am far from certain that they will wish > to move at all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 19 10:58:42 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:58:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49C21752.3060204@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > SOUTH WEST NORTH EAST > Steve Hurley Richard Hills > Pass (1) Pass (1) 1C (2) Double (2) > > (1) Forcing Pass, opening values or better > (2) Artificial game force > > After a few rounds where both sides were running game force relay > auctions, I brought an end to proceedings with a penalty double > for +800. > > The problem was that East-West had given insufficient thought to > the definitions in their system. While an Opening Pass was Forcing > in the East-West methods, the male geek sitting West thought that > he was Overcalling his Pass. :-) :-) > > AG : of course he was. West's bid is no opening. How to play 1C in a forcing club system ? Easy : add Ferts, and play pass = 8-14 with no other convenient call. Partner responds 1C (medium relay, 1D being the strong relay) and you pass with a 3235 9-count. Happened to me. The notion of opening and overcall, when playing forcing passes (or medium passes), is logically changed, but is it in TFLB ? This brings us to an interesting question : *Assume that Brown Sticker opening bids are disallowed, but BS overcalls of artificial forcing openings are allowed (a rather common set of rules). Is a BS overcall of a Forcing Pass allowed ?* Best regards Alain From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 19 13:44:14 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:44:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <49C20E39.9000806@skynet.be> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be> <002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C20E39.9000806@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:19:53 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Grattan misunderstands my concern. > > Consider the following three cases: > > 1) Declarer claims, stating "I'll ruff the third spade". However, there > are three spades in dummy, so this statement clearly breaks down quite > early. The statement is not to be followed, and all normal lines must be > considered. > > 2) Declarer claims, stating "I'll ruff the third spade". However, there > are three spades in dummy, one of which is covered by the other two. > This statement breaks down a little later on. The statement shall be > followed by playing the first two rounds of spades, after which it > becomes obvious that the statement breaks down. All normal lines will be > considered from then on, and the third spade is not considered played > (it may be taken into account if that line is a normal one). > > 3) Declarer claims, stating "I'll ruff the third spade". However, there > are three spades in dummy, one of which is lying on the floor. This > statement never breaks down. It will be quite normal for this player to > actually ruff the third spade, and to discover later on that dummy is > lacking a card, after which a revoke ruling shall be needed. > > I fail to see why a series of happenings that are quite likely to > actually occur at the table if play were to continue, should be > disregarded in dealing with the claim. > > I completely agree that revoking is not normal, but not following suit > from a hand of 12 cards is, IMO, a normal line of play. > > I would urge Grattan to include the above example in his question to the > WBFLC in Sao Paulo. Hi Herman. Agreeing with #3. But what I am missing is how the difference between #2 and #3 could be captured in some minute (assuming the minute doesn't fall to such specific cases as dropped cards). Which is to say, what is the general principle here? Maybe -- irregularities embodied in a claim are not prevented unless claimer was likely to notice the irregularity before making it? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 20 04:35:55 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:35:55 -0500 Subject: [blml] David Flower's comment In-Reply-To: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000c01c9a720$95f9fbf0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: David Flower wrote (snipped) > - A lead out of turn. Here, the Laws specifically allow the non- > offending side to accept the lead, and I can see no reason why this > (legal) option should be denied. Grattan replied: > Where do the laws specifically allow of the acceptance > of a lead that has not been faced? Interesting challenge. The laws actually do the opposite. I think L53 should read as "Any lead out of turn (except a face-down lead) may be treated as a correct lead." But it actually says "Any faced lead may be treated as a correct lead." But I will try anyway. Declarer, in hand, calls for a card from dummy. The defender next in turn says "I accept the lead" before dummy faces the card. (Law 45B: "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card, after which dummy picks up the card and faces it on the table." So the card is played but not yet faced.) After the card is faced, the other defender says "I don't accept the lead." If L55A is used to determine whether or not the lead is accepted, I think it points to the lead being accepted by the player following the dummy, even though the statement was made before the card was faced. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 20 06:16:36 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:16:36 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of Pass of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49C21752.3060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: How to play 1C in a forcing club system ? Easy : add Ferts, and play pass = 8-14 with no other convenient call. Partner responds 1C (medium relay, 1D being the strong relay) and you pass with a 3235 9-count. Happened to me. The notion of opening and overcall, when playing forcing passes (or medium passes), is logically changed, but is it in TFLB ? Law 29C - Call Out of Rotation Is Artificial: "If a call out of rotation is artificial, the provisions of Laws 30, 31 and 32 apply to the denomination(s) specified, rather than the denomination named." Law 30C - When Pass Is Artificial: "When a pass out of rotation is artificial or is a pass of an artificial call, Law 31, not Law 30, applies." Howell Forgy, American naval chaplain, 7th December 1941: "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." 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 Mar 20 16:11:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:11:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be><002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred><000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no><003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred><49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be><002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred><49C20E39.9000806@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000e01c9a96e$2be00c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:44 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. >> >> I completely agree that revoking is not normal, but not following suit >> from a hand of 12 cards is, IMO, a normal line of play. >> +=+ Bear in mind that the Director is in charge and he will not allow matters to proceed until he has corrected the deficient hand. An illegal play is never a 'normal' play in my opinion. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 21 14:43:20 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:43:20 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <000e01c9a96e$2be00c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be> <002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C20E39.9000806@skynet.be> <000e01c9a96e$2be00c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:11:32 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:44 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > > >>> >>> I completely agree that revoking is not normal, but not following suit >>> from a hand of 12 cards is, IMO, a normal line of play. >>> > +=+ Bear in mind that the Director is in charge and he will not > allow matters to proceed until he has corrected the deficient > hand. An illegal play is never a 'normal' play in my opinion. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Legally, at least, normalcy is not the issue. Because we are talking about irregularities embodied in the claim statement. I think the underlying principle is that the claimer should not get more tricks from a claim that the claimer would have gotten by playing it out. Declarer claims, stating that he will ruff a spade in hand and then draw trumps and then dummy is good. This would be a fine claim, if it weren't for the declarer's spade on the floor. The defenders ask declarer to play it out. Declarer does. Near the end of the hand, the card on the floor is found. Of course, play ceases when the claim is made. So you have to judge the claim. Do you rule that the card is restored to hand at the time of the revoke and dummy did not revoke? From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 21 17:05:29 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:05:29 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: References: <001401c9a7a9$2c27fea0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C0C239.300@skynet.be> <002a01c9a7b0$d739ec70$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000601c9a7bc$6f25faa0$4d71efe0$@no> <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C118C2.1020205@skynet.be> <002501c9a7eb$bcf02e20$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C20E39.9000806@skynet.be> <000e01c9a96e$2be00c50$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:43:20 -0500, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:11:32 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> >> >> Grattan Endicott> also > ************************************ >> " God has delegated himself to a >> million deputies." - Emerson. >> "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Robert Frick" >> To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 12:44 PM >> Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. >> >> >>>> >>>> I completely agree that revoking is not normal, but not following suit >>>> from a hand of 12 cards is, IMO, a normal line of play. >>>> >> +=+ Bear in mind that the Director is in charge and he will not >> allow matters to proceed until he has corrected the deficient >> hand. An illegal play is never a 'normal' play in my opinion. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Legally, at least, normalcy is not the issue. Because we are talking > about > irregularities embodied in the claim statement. > > I think the underlying principle is that the claimer should not get more > tricks from a claim that the claimer would have gotten by playing it out. > > Declarer claims, stating that he will ruff a spade in hand and then draw > trumps and then dummy is good. This would be a fine claim, if it weren't > for the declarer's spade on the floor. The defenders ask declarer to play > it out. Declarer does. Near the end of the hand, the card on the floor is > found. > > Of course, play ceases when the claim is made. So you have to judge the > claim. Do you rule that the card is restored to hand at the time of the > revoke and dummy did not revoke? I meant to ask if you rule that declarer did not revoke. (Also, it might help the example if there were other winners the spade could have been thrown on and it would be irrational to intentionally lose a spade trick.) From swillner at nhcc.net Sat Mar 21 22:52:14 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:52:14 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. Message-ID: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> > From: "Robert Frick" > I think the underlying principle is that the claimer should not get more > tricks from a claim that the claimer would have gotten by playing it out. On the contrary, I don't think that principle is part of the current Laws, and I don't think it ever should be adopted. One of the benefits of claiming is that one is protected from future irregularities. There is still the problem of what to do when the irregularity is embodied in the claim statement itself, but Robert's approach doesn't seem at all right to me. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 22 10:20:54 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:20:54 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> References: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <49C602F6.7020206@skynet.be> Well Steve, if you put it like this, you are obviously right, but put in one adverb in Robert's phrase (like "normally" playing it out), and Robert is absolutely right. The example given is one where it is absolutely to be expected that claimer will revoke, since he does not realise he is lacking a 13th card. Why should we give him more than that result? This is not at all the same as saying: You may well get 10 tricks, but you might revoke (after all, people sometimes do), so we shall give you only 9 tricks. Steve Willner wrote: >> From: "Robert Frick" >> I think the underlying principle is that the claimer should not get more >> tricks from a claim that the claimer would have gotten by playing it out. > > On the contrary, I don't think that principle is part of the current > Laws, and I don't think it ever should be adopted. One of the benefits > of claiming is that one is protected from future irregularities. There > is still the problem of what to do when the irregularity is embodied in > the claim statement itself, but Robert's approach doesn't seem at all > right to me. > Well Steve, the question really is like that problem you are not wishing to talk about - so to criticise people who ARE talking about that problem is talking next to the question. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Mar 22 20:10:39 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:10:39 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. Message-ID: <49C68D2F.9070302@nhcc.net> > From: Herman De Wael > The example given is one where it is absolutely to be expected that > claimer will revoke, since he does not realise he is lacking a 13th > card. Why should we give him more than that result? Herman and I have disagreed on this subject before. My view is that claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of mistakes. Obviously not everyone will agree, but I don't think the alternative Herman and Robert seem to favor is the only possible principle for judging claims. Indeed, I don't think it's the correct principle. > From: "Robert Frick" > Well, if you want it that declarer on average should get more tricks than > he would have gotten had he played it out, that is going to make claiming > VERY popular. That's the idea. Do you enjoy playing on just to see whether someone revokes? > Maybe everyone will claim at trick 1. A bit of hyperbole there, perhaps? Claimer is protected from certain kinds of mistakes such as revokes, but he is still obliged to state a line of play and will get the worst "normal" result if his statement breaks down or leaves anything to chance. Claimer isn't protected from all mistakes, just certain kinds. > But you will probably have to wait until 2018. One of us will, unless we can each find directors who share our individual views. > Also, the laws very rarely mention the principles on which they are > constructed. Do you think they should? I am starting to think that they > should. If the Laws were clear, the principles wouldn't matter. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Mar 22 21:04:18 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:04:18 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <49C68D2F.9070302@nhcc.net> References: <49C68D2F.9070302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:10:39 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> The example given is one where it is absolutely to be expected that >> claimer will revoke, since he does not realise he is lacking a 13th >> card. Why should we give him more than that result? > > Herman and I have disagreed on this subject before. My view is that > claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of mistakes. > Obviously not everyone will agree, but I don't think the alternative > Herman and Robert seem to favor is the only possible principle for > judging claims. Indeed, I don't think it's the correct principle. > >> From: "Robert Frick" >> Well, if you want it that declarer on average should get more tricks >> than >> he would have gotten had he played it out, that is going to make >> claiming >> VERY popular. > > That's the idea. Do you enjoy playing on just to see whether someone > revokes? Hi Steve. Thanks for participating, I am always glad to see you here. I realize you don't have time to follow all of the discussion. No one has proposed this; the issue is irregularities embodied in the claim. A harder question is what to do when declarer claims, there is potentially a blocked suit, and you as director (or player, I guess), are not positive declarer will execute it correctly. You would easily give it to a good player, but what about a player of lesser skill. If you want to turn your skills to that question, I would be appreciative. The only answer I got here is that the director never asks the player for more information beyond the claim and ignores whatever he says beyond the claim. > >> Maybe everyone will claim at trick 1. > > A bit of hyperbole there, perhaps? Claimer is protected from certain > kinds of mistakes such as revokes, but he is still obliged to state a > line of play and will get the worst "normal" result if his statement > breaks down or leaves anything to chance. Claimer isn't protected from > all mistakes, just certain kinds. > >> But you will probably have to wait until 2018. > > One of us will, unless we can each find directors who share our > individual views. By the current laws no there is never an expected advantage to claiming. I doubt that will change. > >> Also, the laws very rarely mention the principles on which they are >> constructed. Do you think they should? I am starting to think that they >> should. > > If the Laws were clear, the principles wouldn't matter. But a psychologist you are not! If you give people unconnected information that doesn't make sense, they don't understand or remember it. If possible, they will try to make sense of it. Then they will remember what they understood, not what was really there. So if you elucidate the principles underlying the laws, players and directors will remember them better and apply them more accurately. As stands, it is very interesting to think about how players remember and conceptualize the laws. Bob From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 23 00:35:46 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:35:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <49C68D2F.9070302@nhcc.net> References: <49C68D2F.9070302@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <49C6CB52.7020205@skynet.be> Hello Steve. Steve Willner wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >> The example given is one where it is absolutely to be expected that >> claimer will revoke, since he does not realise he is lacking a 13th >> card. Why should we give him more than that result? > > Herman and I have disagreed on this subject before. I don't think we disagree on this one! > My view is that > claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of mistakes. Indeed they should. Revoking is one of them. But this is not an ordinary revoke (that he should be protected from), this is playing on with a card too few, which is the actual mistake that he made. I don't think claimers should be protected from continueing to make the mistake they already made. Let me draw an analogy: Sometimes, people make the mistake of miscounting trumps. But if a player claims, saying "drawing trumps", we assume that he'll count them correctly. We protect him from making the subsequent mistake of miscounting trumps. But if, OTOH, we ascertain that he has miscounted trumps before claiming, we do not accept that he will suddenly recount them and find that he left one out. > Obviously not everyone will agree, but I don't think the alternative > Herman and Robert seem to favor is the only possible principle for > judging claims. Indeed, I don't think it's the correct principle. > I think Steve has not grasped the difference between the cases we are talking about. A player who holds 12 cards to start with, will be judged to play those 12 cards until, say, trick 10, at which time we shall allow him to notice that he has a card too few, and we shall allow him to look for it and find it. But if he has revoked in the meanwhile (or if he would have revoked in one of the several "normal" lines that are possible for him) then we should be ruling on that revoke. Otherwise, the claimer will get more tricks than the player who would play it out, and not because the player would have made a subsequent mistake, but because the claimer is protected from continueing to make the mistake he has made before claiming. That cannot be right. Herman. >> From: "Robert Frick" >> Well, if you want it that declarer on average should get more tricks than >> he would have gotten had he played it out, that is going to make claiming >> VERY popular. > > That's the idea. Do you enjoy playing on just to see whether someone > revokes? > >> Maybe everyone will claim at trick 1. > > A bit of hyperbole there, perhaps? Claimer is protected from certain > kinds of mistakes such as revokes, but he is still obliged to state a > line of play and will get the worst "normal" result if his statement > breaks down or leaves anything to chance. Claimer isn't protected from > all mistakes, just certain kinds. > >> But you will probably have to wait until 2018. > > One of us will, unless we can each find directors who share our > individual views. > >> Also, the laws very rarely mention the principles on which they are >> constructed. Do you think they should? I am starting to think that they >> should. > > If the Laws were clear, the principles wouldn't matter. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From henk at ripe.net Mon Mar 23 01:46:14 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:46:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] UI or AI? Message-ID: <49C6DBD6.9070208@ripe.net> Hi all, This came up in another discussion... The auction ends. North (declarer) says something like "my partner failed to alert my bid of X, but we do play ABC". The opponents call the TD and the TD gives the player in the pass-out seat the option to change his last call. This player changes his call and the auction continues. Question is the correction by north AI or UI to south? 16A1c seems to suggest it is AI, as it arose from the legal procedures specified in the laws. This somehow seems wrong to me. 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 23 02:56:06 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:56:06 +1100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49C6CB52.7020205@skynet.be> Message-ID: Steve Willner: >>Herman and I have disagreed on this subject before. My view is >>that claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of >>mistakes. Herman De Wael: >I think Steve has not grasped the difference between the cases >we are talking about. A player who holds 12 cards to start with, >will be judged to play those 12 cards until, say, trick 10, at >which time we shall allow him to notice that he has a card too >few, and we shall allow him to look for it and find it. But if >he has revoked in the meanwhile (or if he would have revoked in >one of the several "normal" lines that are possible for him) >then we should be ruling on that revoke. > >Otherwise, the claimer will get more tricks than the player who >would play it out, and not because the player would have made a >subsequent mistake, but because the claimer is protected from >continuing to make the mistake he has made before claiming. >That cannot be right. Richard Hills anaphora: I agree that this situation cannot be "right", since it clashes with the Herman De Wael view of what is and should be right and moral in Duplicate Bridge. I agree that this situation cannot be "wrong", since it does not clash with the Steve Willner view of what is and should be right and moral in Duplicate Bridge. We agree that the name of this email list is not the Bridge Morals Mailing List, but rather the Bridge Laws Mailing List. We agree to look at what the Laws actually say. Law 81C3 - Director's Duties and Powers: ...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C. Richard Hills anaphora: We agree that "becomes aware in any manner" necessarily includes "becomes aware while adjudicating a disputed claim". Law 14B3 and B4 - Hand Found Deficient Afterwards When one or more hand(s) is/are found to contain fewer than 13 cards, with no hand having more than 13, at any time after the opening lead is faced (until the end of the Correction Period), the Director makes a search for any missing card, and: 3. if the card cannot be found, the deal is reconstructed using another pack. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see 4 following). 4. a card restored to a hand under the provisions of Section B of this Law is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient hand. It may become a penalty card (Law 50), and failure to have played it may constitute a revoke. Richard Hills anaphora: We agree that "failure to have played it" is written in the past tense, so we agree that a Law 14B4 revoke cannot apply to a claim statement's future 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 2. Weird Words: Anadiplosis /,an at dI'pl at UsIs/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- The beginning of a sentence, line, or clause with the concluding word of the one preceding. This is yet another term from that repository of extraordinary expressions, the field of rhetoric. An example will make the idea clearer and to give it I call upon that fortune-cookie philosopher, Yoda from Star Wars: "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." Understanding you are? A more sanctified appearance of the form is at the very beginning of Genesis, in the King James Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void." "Anadiplosis" derives from Greek "diplous", double, from which also come "diploid", "diploma" and "diplomat" (the last two from the idea of a doubled or folded paper, hence an official document). The prefix "ana-" is also Greek, meaning back or anew. Do not confuse this figure of speech with epanadiplosis, in which a sentence begins and ends with the same word. A famous example is in a speech by Malcolm X: "You bleed when the white man says bleed. You bite when the white man says bite, and you bark when the white man says bark." The extra prefix in "epanadiplosis" derives from the Greek preposition "epi" that means "upon, in addition". Likewise, don't muddle anadiplosis with the better-known anaphora, in which successive clauses or sentences begin with the same word or words: Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls deified among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city. [Bleak House, by Charles Dickens. "Ait" is another way to spell "eyot", island (see http://wwwords.org?EYOT).] Another rhetorical term for a similar trick is "antistrophe" (also known as "epiphora" and "epistrophe" - there's disagreement over terms), which refers to repeating a word at the end of successive clauses or sentences ("government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth"). Both "antistrophe" and "epistrophe" derive from Greek "strephein", to turn. ------------------------------------------------------------------- World Wide Words is copyright (c) Michael Quinion 2009. All rights reserved. The Words Web site is at http://www.worldwidewords.org . ------------------------------------------------------------------- You may reproduce brief extracts from this newsletter in mailing lists, newsletters or newsgroups online, provided that you include the copyright notice given above. Reproduction of items in printed publications or Web sites, including blogs, needs prior permission from the editor (wordseditor at worldwidewords.org). ------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mar 23 04:19:56 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:19:56 +1100 Subject: [blml] UI or AI? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49C6DBD6.9070208@ripe.net> Message-ID: Henk Uijterwaal: >The auction ends. North (declarer) says something like "my partner >failed to alert my bid of X, but we do play ABC". The opponents >call the TD and the TD gives the player in the pass-out seat the >option to change his last call. This player changes his call and >the auction continues. > >Question is the correction by north AI or UI to south? 16A1c >seems to suggest it is AI, as it arose from the legal procedures >specified in the laws. This somehow seems wrong to me. Richard Hills: Yes it does seem wrong because No it is not AI; Law 16A1(c) contains the over-riding exception "(but see BI following)". And Law 16B1 defines as UI "a remark" by partner. Furthermore -> Law 40C3(a): "Unless permitted by the Regulating Authority a player is not entitled during the auction and play periods to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique." WBF Laws Committee minutes, 10th October 2008, page 4: "16A1(d) allows the player use of his memory of information in the laws and regulations. It does not authorize him to look during the auction and play at the printed regulations, the law book, or anyone's scorecard or the backs of bidding cards etc. as (Law 40C3(a)) an aid to memory. For system card and notes see Law 20G2." 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 Mon Mar 23 07:24:11 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:24:11 -0800 Subject: [blml] ACBL & the Laws Message-ID: <16B65DD3AFC44D54AA5147CEC49FE71C@MARVLAPTOP> At the Houston NABC Alice and I attended the Patron Members party in the ACBL president's suite. There I chatted with a few influential people: CEO Jay Baum - I only informed him of the LC situation in re the 2007 Laws, without implying that he should do anything. Not his job, of course. Dan ("Warwick") Morse - influential BoD member and ACBL ex-president. Plays with Adam Wildavsky in some NABC+ events. Usually affable, he didn't sound so when lecturing me on the relationship of the ACBL to the WBF, saying that the ACBL is not bound by the WBF by-laws regarding the authority for writing and interpreting the Laws. "Don't you know that the ACBL holds the North American license for the Laws?" he asked, implying that this provides "license" (in the other sense) to modify the Laws at will. This echoes what Chip Martel, ACBLLC chairman told me by e-mail, which is that while the ACBL is willling to use the WBF official Laws as a guide, it is not bound by them. New ACBL president (for a year) Jerry Fleming - Intelligent and likeable. When I explained the matter to him, he said he would ask Joan Gerard (WBFLC and Drafting Committee member) about it. I did not get a chance to speak with Joan myself, as she was very busy discussing other matters with various people of importance. Eavesdropping, I think the main subject matter was the holding of the 2010 WBF World Series of Bridge in America. Russia has dropped out as a host, probably for economic reasons. So the WBF is evidently considering holding a big WBF tournament in a maverick ZO that does not recognize the WBF by-laws as binding, very interesting. Earlier I spoke with ACBL TD Mike Flader, the ACBL Bulletin columnist ("Ruling the Game"). He was unaware of the situation but seemed sympathetic to my viewpoint, and promised to look into the matter. I didn't get an opportunity to talk with Matt Smith, ACBL TD and LC member, but he is well aware of my views from BLML posts that I forwarded to him. If anything is happening behind the scenes, I doubt that he would be able to discuss it with me. I keep wondering just who is in charge. The ACBL LC must have authorized someone to write its version of the 2007 Laws, and the result must have been approved by both the LC and the BoD. However, I can't find anything about that in the LC or BoD minutes. Maybe I missed it. ACBL BoD minutes recently defined the roles of BoD commissions. For the LC the minutes declared: There will be an ACBL Laws Commission which will prepare the Laws under which both duplicate and rubber bridge games will be governed. These Laws may be reviewed and revised periodically by the Commission. I don't know what to say. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 23 07:27:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:27:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Sons raise meat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: A cattleman had a rare stake in his ranch, which steakholding he decided to gift to his three sons. When he did so, he renamed the ranch "Focus", because that was where the sun's rays meet. Herman De Wael asserted: >Also, the laws very rarely mention the principles on which they >are constructed. Pocket Oxford Dictionary: "rare, a. few & far between, uncommon, exceptional, seldom found or occurring" The Lawbook, up to only Law 12B1, "rare" mention of principles: "...They are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged..." "...opponents may be in need of an explanation..." "...remedial provisions to be applied..." "...primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play..." "When the Director exercises his authority..." "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications..." "...it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action." "...make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit..." "...so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in ignorance..." "...judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non- offending contestant..." "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage..." 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 Mar 23 09:28:37 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:28:37 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> <49C602F6.7020206@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000a01c9ab91$602a1cb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 9:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. < The example given is one where it is absolutely to be expected that claimer will revoke, since he does not realise he is lacking a 13th card. Why should we give him more than that result? This is not at all the same as saying: You may well get 10 tricks, but you might revoke (after all, people sometimes do), so we shall give you only 9 tricks. > +=+ Speculative. In actual play there is nothing to say that the revoke will be established. Nor, in actual play, is there any assurance that Dummy will not ask Declarer about his revoke. However, under Law 70 it is the Director who is in charge of matters and he may not incorporate an irregularity into his adjudication of the outcome. An unlawful play is not a 'normal' play. When he examines the hands the Director will first correct the deficient hand. Herman is talking, of course, about what he would like the law to say, i.e. that the Director be required to replicate what, in his judgement, would be the course of events in actual play. He is entitled to hold a view that such a provision ought to be incorporated into the law, but not that it should be 'read' where it is not present. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ['normal' = according to rule; conforming to the authoritative or accepted standard.] From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 23 10:30:21 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:30:21 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <000a01c9ab91$602a1cb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> <49C602F6.7020206@skynet.be> <000a01c9ab91$602a1cb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49C756AD.7090807@skynet.be> Grattan, you are not getting the true spirit of my opinions. Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 9:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > < > > The example given is one where it is absolutely to be > expected that claimer will revoke, since he does not > realise he is lacking a 13th card. Why should we give > him more than that result? This is not at all the same > as saying: You may well get 10 tricks, but you might > revoke (after all, people sometimes do), so we shall > give you only 9 tricks. > +=+ Speculative. Hardly so. May I remind you that we are dealing with claims here - where the object of the exercise is to give the claimer the lowest number of tricks that are possible, given all the normal lines that are available to him? When a claimer has a choice of three suits to start with, there is a 33% chance that he'll start with spades. Yet, if spades turns out to be his worst choice, that is what we'll stick him with. So if with "speculative", you mean that the chance of this happening is less than 50%, you are wrong inyou application of claim law, since happenings with far less than 50% chance are to be taken into consideration. And if with "speculative" you mean that there is only a small chance (say 5% or so) that he will in fact revoke, then I believe your impression of this case is mistaken, as I believe that a player with only 12 cards has a serious probability of revoking in the future. > In actual play there is nothing to > say that the revoke will be established. No, but the chances of it happening are greater than 33%, IMO. > Nor, in actual > play, is there any assurance that Dummy will not ask > Declarer about his revoke. No, but the chances of him asking, combined with the chance of claimer not merely confirming that he has no more of the suit (he really does not have them in his hand, remember!) are far less than 33%. So the chances of him actually revoking are still quite large. > However, under Law 70 it is the Director who > is in charge of matters and he may not incorporate > an irregularity into his adjudication of the outcome. And this is stated in a WBFLC interpretation which was not confirmed nor rescinded when the new laws appeared, leaving the matter in limbo. Furthermore, the interpretation was given over a totally different case. > An unlawful play is not a 'normal' play. When he > examines the hands the Director will first correct the > deficient hand. > Herman is talking, of course, about what he > would like the law to say, i.e. that the Director be > required to replicate what, in his judgement, would > be the course of events in actual play. He is entitled > to hold a view that such a provision ought to be > incorporated into the law, but not that it should be > 'read' where it is not present. Grattan, two remarks: first, it is not the law who says what you are stating here, it is a WBFLC interpretation that I don't even believe is relevant to this case. secondly, yes I am stating what I would like the law to say, is that not the purpose of this thread - for you to put this on the agenda in Sao Paulo and see if your colleagues agree that the interpretation is also valid in cases like this? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ['normal' = according to rule; conforming to the > authoritative or accepted standard.] > Herman. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Mar 23 14:09:28 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:09:28 -0500 Subject: [blml] Sons raise meat [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 01:27:59 -0500, wrote: > > A cattleman had a rare stake in his ranch, which steakholding he > decided to gift to his three sons. When he did so, he renamed > the ranch "Focus", because that was where the sun's rays meet. > > Herman De Wael asserted: > >> Also, the laws very rarely mention the principles on which they >> are constructed. Well, not Herman. > > Pocket Oxford Dictionary: > > "rare, a. few & far between, uncommon, exceptional, seldom found > or occurring" > > The Lawbook, up to only Law 12B1, "rare" mention of principles: > > "...They are primarily designed not as punishment for > irregularities but rather for the rectification of situations > where non-offenders may otherwise be damaged..." This is a good example of the laws explaining underlying principles. It creates unnecessary confusion, however, because it is wrong. Many laws are designed to try to ensure that the NOS are not damaged. In doing so, they "overly rectify" the OS. And it doesn't mention the other principles used in constructing the laws. (After all, if equity is the primary goal, what are the others?) One is that they be easy to apply. These other principles have to be balanced and there are trade-offs. That isn't mentioned either. This creates unnecessary confusion too. So the poster-child for explaining principles is incorrect and inadequate. It turns out that New York and New Jersey have never fought a war. They do have things to fight about -- currently, they disagree about who owns the tiny island that the Statue of Liberty is sitting on. The reason they have never fought a war is that they have peaceful methods of resolving their disputes. An important reason to have the laws, and the director, is to provide a way of settling disputes that arise at the table. Is that anywhere? It took me over a year to figure out that when I make a ruling and leave the table and hear the table still kind of arguing about things, that I am supposed to go back to the table and firmly tell the players that if they have an argument, their argument is with me. Bob, who is only up to the first two sentences of the Introduction > > "...opponents may be in need of an explanation..." > > "...remedial provisions to be applied..." > > "...primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of > play..." > > "When the Director exercises his authority..." > > "The Director alone has the right to determine rectifications..." > > "...it is appropriate to select the most advantageous action." > > "...make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though > they thereby appear to profit..." > > "...so rule, for example, when the non-offending side may have > gained through subsequent action taken by an opponent in > ignorance..." > > "...judges that these Laws do not provide indemnity to a non- > offending contestant..." > > "The objective of score adjustment is to redress damage..." > > > 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 Mon Mar 23 15:39:23 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:39:23 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> <49C602F6.7020206@skynet.be><000a01c9ab91$602a1cb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C756AD.7090807@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801c9abc5$2c798c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > > And this is stated in a WBFLC interpretation which > was not confirmed nor rescinded when the new laws > appeared, leaving the matter in limbo. Furthermore, > the interpretation was given over a totally different case. > +=+ The chief problem here is Herman's poor command of the English language. The interpretation was not given in any specific case. It was a statement of principle relating to any 'irregularity embodied in a statement of claim'. Since it has not been rescinded or modified it still applies because the law has not altered subsequently in any particular that would conflict with the interpretation. The Director's task is not to determine what might have happened had there been no claim. His task is to adjudicate the claim within the parameters of the law. The 2001 interpretation instructs him that he may not permit of any irregularity that is embodied in the statement of claim. This is how it is and we must not allow Herman's unjustified burbling to confuse their understanding of the matter. When it comes to the next meeting of the WBFLC my opinion will favour confirmation that the Director in his Law 70 adjudication shall not implement *any* irregularity that is embodied in the statement of claim and, shall proceed in such circumstances exactly as the 2001 minute specifies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Mon Mar 23 17:24:33 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:24:33 -0000 Subject: [blml] UI or AI? References: <49C6DBD6.9070208@ripe.net> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henk Uijterwaal" To: "blml" Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 12:46 AM Subject: [blml] UI or AI? > Hi all, > > This came up in another discussion... > > The auction ends. North (declarer) says something like "my partner > failed to alert my bid of X, but we do play ABC". The opponents call > the TD and the TD gives the player in the pass-out seat the option > to change his last call. This player changes his call and the auction > continues. > > Question is the correction by north AI or UI to south? 16A1c seems > to suggest it is AI, as it arose from the legal procedures specified > in the laws. This somehow seems wrong to me. The route is via "lawful calls and plays" so an unalerted call that is alertable is an unlawful action .... Does this get us there? I vote for UI, of course. John > > Henk > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Henk Uijterwaal Email: > henk.uijterwaal(at)ripe.net > RIPE Network Coordination Centre > http://www.amsterdamned.org/~henk > P.O.Box 10096 Singel 258 Phone: +31.20.5354414 > 1001 EB Amsterdam 1016 AB Amsterdam Fax: +31.20.5354445 > The Netherlands The Netherlands Mobile: +31.6.55861746 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Belgium: an unsolvable problem, discussed in endless meetings, with no > hope for a solution, where everybody still lives happily. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From mv.phaff at quicknet.nl Mon Mar 23 11:50:58 2009 From: mv.phaff at quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:50:58 +0100 Subject: [blml] authorized information Message-ID: <4C69A85A7DF742E985AB8F37DB1FB8C7@koffiepot> Casus: To answer questions from the opponents the players of the declaring side consult their system card during the clarification period (40B2b). It appears that the declaring side has given misinformation, the players of the declaring side clearly don't know their own system. Based on 21B the auction is restarted. According to 16A1c the information from their system card is authorized information to the former declaring side to be. Right? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090323/b97e01bb/attachment.htm From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 23 23:39:00 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:39:00 +1100 Subject: [blml] authorized information [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <4C69A85A7DF742E985AB8F37DB1FB8C7@koffiepot> Message-ID: Marcus Einfeld, Federal Court Judge 1986-2001: "That, that was a lie, but you know that was a lie to a journalist, I, I didn't quite feel the same obligation, if you don't mind my saying so." [snip] Sarah Ferguson, journalist: "No. All I'm asking you is whether you told deliberate lies in those cases?" Marcus Einfeld, Federal Court Judge 1986-2001: "No." Sarah Ferguson, journalist: "And that you would remember?" Marcus Einfeld, Federal Court Judge 1986-2001: "No. That I would remember and of course I didn't, definitely not." Sarah Ferguson, journalist (voiceover): "If Einfeld's case had gone to trial, the evidence of a pattern of dishonest behaviour would have been aired in court. Before that could happen, he did a deal with the prosecutor and pleaded guilty to the events of 2006. It was enough to put him in jail." Martin Phaff: >Casus: >To answer questions from the opponents the players of the declaring >side consult their system card during the clarification period >(40B2b). It appears that the declaring side has given misinformation, >the players of the declaring side clearly don?t know their own >system. Based on 21B the auction is restarted. > >According to 16A1c the information from their system card is >authorized information to the former declaring side to be. >Right? Richard Hills: Hi, Martin. Welcome to blml. Do you have any cats? An excellent question. It seems to me that what is _relevantly_ written on the system cards of the partners of the former declaring side is AI to all four players. However, it seems to me that what was originally _irrelevant_ but is now _relevant_ is not AI to the new defending side. One obvious example of UI to the offending side would be their system cards' listing of defensive leads and signals. 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 Tue Mar 24 05:05:48 2009 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:05:48 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <200903231531.n2NFV4kn012097@cfa.harvard.edu> References: <200903231531.n2NFV4kn012097@cfa.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <49C85C1C.9020300@nhcc.net> SW> My view is that SW> claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of mistakes. From: Herman De Wael > Indeed they should. Revoking is one of them. > But this is not an ordinary revoke (that he should be protected from), > this is playing on with a card too few, which is the actual mistake that > he made. I don't think claimers should be protected from continueing to > make the mistake they already made. My view is what I stated. As I also stated, Herman and I disagree and have done so before. As to what the Laws say now, my view is that "as equitably as possible to both sides" means without irregularity. As to what the Laws should be, my view is that avoiding all infractions is a reasonable reward for claiming. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on both points, as I also wrote earlier. > Otherwise, the claimer will get more tricks than the player who would > play it out... That cannot be right. On the contrary, it seems quite right to me. Why is it so hard to believe I meant what I wrote? I may be wrong, of course, or eventually overruled by authority, but I don't think my position is unreasonable or impossible. > From: "Robert Frick" > A harder question is what to do when declarer claims, there is potentially > a blocked suit, and you as director (or player, I guess), are not positive > declarer will execute it correctly. You would easily give it to a good > player, but what about a player of lesser skill. As director or AC member, not necessarily. It depends on how difficult the position is. I would not take opponent's skill into account, though I would take into account the level of the event and what statements that bridge culture considers customary when claiming. In the past, the WBFLC endorsed a contrary position, taking "class of player" into account, but I believe that has been changed with the new Laws. As an opponent, I consider lots of factors -- among others the type and level of the event and not least the skill of the Director -- when deciding whether or not to call attention to an irregularity. > The only answer I got > here is that the director never asks the player for more information > beyond the claim and ignores whatever he says beyond the claim. That's a little bit of shorthand for L70D1, I expect. It isn't wrong, but any time the analysis isn't obvious, the Director should welcome help. Of course subjective, unprovable statements such as "I always knew (whatever)," are legally irrelevant. > By the current laws no there is never an expected advantage to claiming. This is certainly wrong. Even Herman admits claimer cannot be deemed to revoke in ordinary cases, though non-claimers sometimes do. Neither can claimer screw up the actual play as long as his statement is clear and correct (_vide_ Hallberg). And of course claiming may help to avoid time penalties. It wouldn't surprise me if people can think of other advantages. > I doubt that will change. Me too, though we disagree on what the current position is. > If you give people unconnected information > that doesn't make sense, they don't understand or remember it. I am aware of that, though you are right I'm no psychologist. However, in the case of TFLB, there's no need to remember most of the information given. All a Director has to do is look up the appropriate Law and apply it. Or at least that's all a Director _should_ have to do. The problem I see is lack of clarity, not absence of general principles. > From: "Grattan" > The Director's task is not to determine what might > have happened had there been no claim. His task is to > adjudicate the claim within the parameters of the law. In particular, L70A applies. The problem, of course, is that "adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides" can be interpreted in a variety of ways. By analogy to L12, we are probably looking for an expected result of some kind, but the circumstances to look at are unclear. Omitting all infractions, however, seems a reasonable starting point, especially as the WBFLC has said that's proper. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 24 04:06:52 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:06:52 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACBL & the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <16B65DD3AFC44D54AA5147CEC49FE71C@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: Marv French: [snip] >Dan ("Warwick") Morse - influential BoD member and ACBL ex- >president. Plays with Adam Wildavsky in some NABC+ events. >Usually affable, he didn't sound so when lecturing me on the >relationship of the ACBL to the WBF, saying that the ACBL is not >bound by the WBF by-laws regarding the authority for writing >and interpreting the Laws. "Don't you know that the ACBL holds >the North American license for the Laws?" he asked, implying >that this provides "license" (in the other sense) to modify the >Laws at will. > >This echoes what Chip Martel, ACBLLC chairman told me by e-mail, >which is that while the ACBL is willing to use the WBF official >Laws as a guide, it is not bound by them. [snip] Preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, second paragraph: "Previously through the 1930s the Laws were promulgated by the Portland Club of London and the Whist Club of New York. From the 40s onwards the American Contract Bridge League Laws Commission replaced the Whist Club, while the British Bridge League and the European Bridge League supplemented the Portland Club?s efforts. The 1975 Laws were also promulgated by the World Bridge Federation, as they were in 1987 and 1997." Richard Hills: Given that the Constitution of the ACBL and the Constitution of the WBF are inconsistent on this topic, and given what the second paragraph of the Preface says about the history of the promulgation of the Lawbook, it seems to me that Dan Morse and Chip Martel are legally right. Therefore, if the ACBL Mohammed will not come to the Drafting Committee mountain, I suggest that the Drafting Committee mountain comes to the ACBL Mohammed. That is, I suggest that the Drafting Committee makes the following minor changes to the Laws in Sao Paulo. (1) Include the ACBL (and Japanese) addition to Law 78B: Difference in points IMPs 0-10 0 (2) Legalise the ACBL change to (and also legalise Ton Kooijman's suggestion for regulation under) Law 12C2(c): "The foregoing is modified for a non-offending contestant that obtains a session score exceeding 60% of the available matchpoints or for an offending contestant that 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. **Subject to approval by the Regulating Authority, this clause may be varied by the Tournament Organizer.**" (3) Add to Law 12C1(e)(ii) the words "...had the irregularity not occurred." With regard to point (3) above, in a private email I posed this multi-part response to a suggestion by a senior ACBL blmler: >>Here your enthymeme argument seems to me to be: >> >>(a) suppose that Law 12C1(e)(ii) applied as originally written >> in?the ACBL, and >>(b) suppose some expert TDs and expert ACs understood how the >> ? ?original Law 12C1(e)(ii) was to be applied, then >>(c) those expert TDs and expert ACs would correctly and Lawfully >> ?apply Law 12C1(e)(ii) against undesirables, but >>(d) those expert TDs and expert ACs would incorrectly and >> ? ?unLawfully apply Law 12C1(e)(ii) against friends, because >>(e) Law 12C1(e)(ii) is a complex Law so they would not be caught. The Guardian, Saturday 7th March 2009, on complex juvenile law: [snip] The cases of up to 2,000 children put into custody by Ciavarella over the past seven years - including that of Transue - are now being reviewed in a billowing scandal dubbed "kids for cash". The alleged racket has raised questions about the cosy ties between the courts and private contractors, and about the harsh treatment meted out to adolescents. Alerted by Laurene Transue, the Juvenile Law Centre in Wilkes-Barre began to uncover scores of cases in which teenagers had been summarily sent to custody by Ciavarella, dating as far back as 1999. One child was detained for stealing a $4 jar of nutmeg, another for throwing a sandal at her mother, a third aged 14 was held for six months for slapping a friend at school. Half of all the children who came before Ciavarella had no legal representation, despite it being a right under state law. The Juvenile Law Centre has issued a class action against the two judges and other implicated parties in which it seeks compensation for more than 80 children who it claims were victims of injustice. The prosecution charge sheet alleges that from about June 2000 to January 2007 Ciavarella entered into an "understanding" with Conahan to concoct a scheme to enrich themselves. The two judges conspired to strip the local state detention centre of funding, diverting the money to a private company called PA Child Care which it helped to build a new facility in the area. In January 2002, prosecutors allege, Conahan signed a "placement guarantee agreement" with the firm to send teenagers into their custody. Enough children would be detained to ensure the firm received more than $1m a year in public money. In late 2004 a long- term deal was secured with PACC worth about $58m. In return, the prosecutors allege, the judges received at least $2.6m in kickbacks. They bought a condominium in Florida with the proceeds. PACC's then owner, Bob Powell, who has not been charged, used to moor his yacht at a nearby marina. He called the boat "Reel Justice". [snip] Yet the facts suggest otherwise. For the first two years of his term his rate of custodial sentencing was static at 4.5% of cases. In 1999 - shortly before he allegedly began the racket with Conahan, according to prosecutors - it suddenly shot up to 13.7%. By 2004 it had risen to up to 26% of all teenagers entering his court. Ciavarella hopes that with good behaviour he may spend only six years in jail. Hillary Transue, meanwhile, is now 17 and in high school. She spent a month in detention for the parody. For many months afterwards she was ostracised by friends and neighbours, labelled a delinquent. "It's nice to see him on the other side of the bench," she says of Ciavarella. "I'm sure he understands now how it feels." 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 Mar 24 05:52:02 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:52:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] ACBL & the Laws [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: From: > Marv French: > > [snip] > >>Dan ("Warwick") Morse - influential BoD member and ACBL ex- >>president. Plays with Adam Wildavsky in some NABC+ events. >>Usually affable, he didn't sound so when lecturing me on the >>relationship of the ACBL to the WBF, saying that the ACBL is not >>bound by the WBF by-laws regarding the authority for writing >>and interpreting the Laws. "Don't you know that the ACBL holds >>the North American license for the Laws?" he asked, implying >>that this provides "license" (in the other sense) to modify the >>Laws at will. >> >>This echoes what Chip Martel, ACBLLC chairman told me by e-mail, >>which is that while the ACBL is willing to use the WBF official >>Laws as a guide, it is not bound by them. > > [snip] > > Preface to the 2007 Laws of Duplicate Bridge, second paragraph: > > "Previously through the 1930s the Laws were promulgated by the > Portland Club of London and the Whist Club of New York. From the > 40s onwards the American Contract Bridge League Laws Commission > replaced the Whist Club, while the British Bridge League and the > European Bridge League supplemented the Portland Club?s efforts. > The 1975 Laws were also promulgated by the World Bridge > Federation, as they were in 1987 and 1997." > > Richard Hills: > > Given that the Constitution of the ACBL and the Constitution of > the WBF are inconsistent on this topic, and given what the second > paragraph of the Preface says about the history of the > promulgation of the Lawbook, it seems to me that Dan Morse and > Chip Martel are legally right. > Not necessarily. The history is incomplete, as it fails to mention the establishment of the WBF Laws Commission, which changed things. Look at the preface for the 1975 Laws, as published by the ACBL: (snip of above history) "The Laws of Duplicate Bridge, 1975, as presented in this book supersede all of the above codes. In 1971, the World Bridge Federation established a W.B.F. Laws Commission; this is the first edition to carry the endorsement of that body, thus the first truly world-wide code. "The American edition is substantially identical to the new International Code; however, there is a considerable difference in form. The new format has necessitated occasional minor changes in wording, but in no instance is there a change of substance. This edition may be regarded as an 'American translation' of the International Code." Look at the Preface to the 1987 Laws, American edition: (snip of history) "The 1975 Laws became international in fact as well as in name when the World Bridge Federation's Laws Commission joined the promulgating bodies. And these 1987 Laws reflect contributions from two dozen nations on six continents, coordinated by the W.B.F." That makes it pretty obvious that the WBFLC is responsible for the Laws, not individual ZOs. I don't know of any legislative action that changed that. The ACBL is now a member of the WBF and is supposed to abide by its by-laws. We do not want to go back to the past, with its splintered responsibilities for the Laws. If the ACBL thinks otherwise, let it secede from the WBF. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 24 06:13:18 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:13:18 +1100 Subject: [blml] The Rubaiyat of Law 58B2 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Sir Humphrey Appleby: "Almost anything can be attacked as a failure, but almost anything can be defended as not a significant failure. Politicians do not appreciate the significance of 'significant'." Imps North-South vulnerable South is declarer in 4H, and has lost two tricks so far. At trick ten you, West are on lead. NORTH (dummy) S K5 H A D --- C --- WEST (you) S Q32 H --- D --- C --- You have a complete count on the deal, so you know that declarer's last three cards are two spades plus the other outstanding trump, while partner's last three cards are two spades plus the thirteenth diamond. Obviously your correct play is to lead the deuce or trey of spades, in case declarer's spade holding is Jx and declarer misguesses. However, as you attempt to lead the deuce of spades, you unintentionally drop both the queen of spades and the deuce of spades simultaneously face up on the table. Law 58B2: "If a player leads or plays two or more cards simultaneously: If more than one card is visible, the player designates the card he proposes to play; when he is a defender, each other card exposed becomes a penalty card (see Law 50)." Law 50B: "A single card below the rank of an honour exposed unintentionally (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally) becomes a minor penalty card..." Law 50C: "When a defender has a minor penalty card ... Offender's partner is not subject to lead penalty, but information gained through seeing the penalty card is unauthorized (see E following)." Law 10C4: "Subject to Law 16D2, after rectification an infraction it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction (but see Laws 27 and 50)." The Director is summoned, and advises you of your rights under Laws 58B2, 50B, 50C and 10C4. You realise that if you designate your original choice of the deuce of spades as the card you propose to play that will be disastrous for the defence. Your queen of spades will be a major penalty card, so when partner wins the spade trick then declarer will be able to force pard to lead their thirteenth diamond for a ruff-and-discard. Therefore, your only hope is that pard's two spades are the AJ, so you select the queen of spades as the card you propose to play, since it seems that your deuce of spades would be a minor penalty card thus allowing pard to choose their only logical alternative of cashing the jack of spades for the setting trick. You duly lead the queen of spades, and declarer duly plays the king of spades, and pard duly wins the ace of spades, and pard delightfully holds the jack of spades!!! However..... The Director rules that your deuce of spades is a major penalty card, not a minor penalty card. The Director's reasoning is that because you originally intended to lead the deuce of spades, that card was not exposed unintentionally. You appeal to the Regulating Authority. How should the Regulating Authority rule? Ton Kooijman, not-yet-official Commentary on the 2007 Laws: Law 58 Assume that LHO, being on lead, "produces" two cards on the table, both small. The TD asks him what was his intention and he says that: 1. while picking another card which he wanted to play, these two cards dropped. Strictly speaking both cards become major penalty cards and declarer chooses the one to be played. 2. he wanted to play one of these two cards, and the other dropped simultaneously. The TD lets him play the card he wanted to play and the other becomes a minor penalty card. Practically speaking the TD should not get into position (1) by assuming that the player wanted to play one the cards dropped. This also prevents the possibility of creating unauthorized information. Assume that the same happens but with an honour card and a small card. Now the TD should tell LHO that if he plays the honour card, the remaining card will become a minor penalty card, while if he chooses the small card, he will be left with a major penalty card. David Stevenson, official-in-merely-EBU-plus-WBU White Book: 58.2 Minor penalty card if two cards visible? When two cards are both visible the player designates the card he proposes to play. This does not need to be the card he originally intended. If he is a defender the remaining card is a penalty card but it is only a minor penalty card if it is not the card he originally intended, and is not an honour. Edward Fitzgerald (1809-1883), translation of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam: Myself when young did eagerly frequent Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument About it and about: but evermore Came out by the same Door as in I went. 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 Mar 24 06:55:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:55:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] Senior movement. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <003101c9a7d1$6519c180$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, 19th March 2009: ...For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. As a personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered for relaxing the provision in the minute in the case of the first lead in the statement of the order in which cards will be played... Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, 24th March 2009: ...When it comes to the next meeting of the WBFLC my opinion will favour confirmation that the Director in his Law 70 adjudication shall not implement *any* irregularity that is embodied in the statement of claim and, shall proceed in such circumstances exactly as the 2001 minute specifies. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: It seems to me that rational debate on blml (especially by Steve Willner) has convinced Grattan to modify his personal opinion of last Thursday to a new personal opinion of today. I welcome this Senior movement by a Senior bridge bureaucrat; this starkly contrasts with the unalterable personal opinions of many others, such as myself and William Ewart Gladstone. Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (1804-1881): "Posterity will do justice to that unprincipled maniac Gladstone -- extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy and superstition; and with the one commanding characteristic -- whether Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition, whether preaching, praying, speechifying or scribbling -- never a gentleman." 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 Mar 24 09:17:26 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:17:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <49C85C1C.9020300@nhcc.net> References: <200903231531.n2NFV4kn012097@cfa.harvard.edu> <49C85C1C.9020300@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <49C89716.1070401@skynet.be> Steve Willner wrote: > SW> My view is that > SW> claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of mistakes. > > From: Herman De Wael >> Indeed they should. Revoking is one of them. >> But this is not an ordinary revoke (that he should be protected from), >> this is playing on with a card too few, which is the actual mistake that >> he made. I don't think claimers should be protected from continueing to >> make the mistake they already made. > > My view is what I stated. As I also stated, Herman and I disagree and > have done so before. > > As to what the Laws say now, my view is that "as equitably as possible > to both sides" means without irregularity. I agree - but it also means "without big mistakes". People sometimes miscount the trump suit. Yet when a player states "drawing trumps", we rule that he will draw trumps exactly until there are none left in opponent's hands, not one round less, not one round more. But, if a player has miscounted trumps before claiming, we shall stick him to his mistake, and not allow him to draw the correct number of rounds of trumps. This is what I believe is the most fundamental basis for claim ruling: we stick the claimer to the mistake(s) he has committed before claiming, but we don't stick him to any other (big) mistake. It is that latter part of the principle which got translated into the "no irregularities" part of this discussion. But when they did that translation, they forgot the part about sticking claimer to the mistake he has made before. So when a player starts off with 12 cards, we do not allow him to suddenly find that 13th card immediately after claiming. Instead we rule him to get the least favourable of all normal lines. Normal, for him, that is. And that includes (IMO) revoking. > As to what the Laws should > be, my view is that avoiding all infractions is a reasonable reward for > claiming. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on both points, as I > also wrote earlier. > I absolutely agree. But refinding a lost card is not a reasonable reward. >> Otherwise, the claimer will get more tricks than the player who would >> play it out... That cannot be right. > > On the contrary, it seems quite right to me. > You have got to be kidding. > Why is it so hard to believe I meant what I wrote? I may be wrong, of > course, or eventually overruled by authority, but I don't think my > position is unreasonable or impossible. > Well, yes, it is unreasonable. Here you have a player of which you can be 90% certain that he'll revoke at some point in the play to come, and yet you award him with a line in which he does not revoke. Let's turn it some other way. Suppose the 13th card (the one that is on the floor) is the ace of spades. You list all normal lines, and among those there will be lines in which opponent's king of spades makes a trick, and claimer is left in the end with an ace in a hand he can no longer reach. That fully normal line leads to 9 tricks. Are you going to reward this player with a 10th trick (for the SA) when he claims? The object of claim ruling is to find a "normal" score. Is it "normal" for a player who has miscounted his cards to not find that card until very far down the end of the play? >> From: "Robert Frick" >> A harder question is what to do when declarer claims, there is potentially >> a blocked suit, and you as director (or player, I guess), are not positive >> declarer will execute it correctly. You would easily give it to a good >> player, but what about a player of lesser skill. > > As director or AC member, not necessarily. It depends on how difficult > the position is. I would not take opponent's skill into account, though > I would take into account the level of the event and what statements > that bridge culture considers customary when claiming. > > In the past, the WBFLC endorsed a contrary position, taking "class of > player" into account, but I believe that has been changed with the new Laws. > > As an opponent, I consider lots of factors -- among others the type and > level of the event and not least the skill of the Director -- when > deciding whether or not to call attention to an irregularity. > >> The only answer I got >> here is that the director never asks the player for more information >> beyond the claim and ignores whatever he says beyond the claim. > > That's a little bit of shorthand for L70D1, I expect. It isn't wrong, > but any time the analysis isn't obvious, the Director should welcome > help. Of course subjective, unprovable statements such as "I always > knew (whatever)," are legally irrelevant. > >> By the current laws no there is never an expected advantage to claiming. > > This is certainly wrong. Even Herman admits claimer cannot be deemed to > revoke in ordinary cases, though non-claimers sometimes do. Neither can > claimer screw up the actual play as long as his statement is clear and > correct (_vide_ Hallberg). And of course claiming may help to avoid > time penalties. It wouldn't surprise me if people can think of other > advantages. > >> I doubt that will change. > > Me too, though we disagree on what the current position is. > >> If you give people unconnected information >> that doesn't make sense, they don't understand or remember it. > > I am aware of that, though you are right I'm no psychologist. However, > in the case of TFLB, there's no need to remember most of the information > given. All a Director has to do is look up the appropriate Law and > apply it. Or at least that's all a Director _should_ have to do. The > problem I see is lack of clarity, not absence of general principles. > > > From: "Grattan" > > The Director's task is not to determine what might > > have happened had there been no claim. His task is to > > adjudicate the claim within the parameters of the law. > > In particular, L70A applies. The problem, of course, is that > "adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both > sides" can be interpreted in a variety of ways. By analogy to L12, we > are probably looking for an expected result of some kind, but the > circumstances to look at are unclear. Omitting all infractions, > however, seems a reasonable starting point, especially as the WBFLC has > said that's proper. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 24 11:05:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 05:05:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:56:06 -0500, wrote: > Steve Willner: > >>> Herman and I have disagreed on this subject before. My view is >>> that claimers are and should be protected from certain kinds of >>> mistakes. > > Herman De Wael: > >> I think Steve has not grasped the difference between the cases >> we are talking about. A player who holds 12 cards to start with, >> will be judged to play those 12 cards until, say, trick 10, at >> which time we shall allow him to notice that he has a card too >> few, and we shall allow him to look for it and find it. But if >> he has revoked in the meanwhile (or if he would have revoked in >> one of the several "normal" lines that are possible for him) >> then we should be ruling on that revoke. >> >> Otherwise, the claimer will get more tricks than the player who >> would play it out, and not because the player would have made a >> subsequent mistake, but because the claimer is protected from >> continuing to make the mistake he has made before claiming. >> That cannot be right. > > Richard Hills anaphora: > > I agree that this situation cannot be "right", since it clashes > with the Herman De Wael view of what is and should be right and > moral in Duplicate Bridge. > > I agree that this situation cannot be "wrong", since it does not > clash with the Steve Willner view of what is and should be right > and moral in Duplicate Bridge. > > We agree that the name of this email list is not the Bridge > Morals Mailing List, but rather the Bridge Laws Mailing List. > > We agree to look at what the Laws actually say. > > Law 81C3 - Director's Duties and Powers: > > ...to rectify an error or irregularity of which he becomes aware > in any manner, within the correction period established in > accordance with Law 79C. > > Richard Hills anaphora: > > We agree that "becomes aware in any manner" necessarily includes > "becomes aware while adjudicating a disputed claim". > > Law 14B3 and B4 - Hand Found Deficient Afterwards > > When one or more hand(s) is/are found to contain fewer than 13 > cards, with no hand having more than 13, at any time after the > opening lead is faced (until the end of the Correction Period), > the Director makes a search for any missing card, and: > > 3. if the card cannot be found, the deal is reconstructed using > another pack. Rectification and/or penalties may apply (see 4 > following). > > 4. a card restored to a hand under the provisions of Section B of > this Law is deemed to have belonged continuously to the deficient > hand. It may become a penalty card (Law 50), and failure to have > played it may constitute a revoke. > > Richard Hills anaphora: > > We agree that "failure to have played it" is written in the past > tense, so we agree that a Law 14B4 revoke cannot apply to a claim > statement's future trick. I wish you had cited the law "A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play." And just to be clear, this argument does not apply to preventing a lead out of turn. Right? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 24 10:19:01 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:19:01 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior movement. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002701c9ac61$9446e890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 5:55 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior movement. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, 19th March 2009: > > ...For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. > As a personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered > for relaxing the provision in the minute in the case of the > first lead in the statement of the order in which cards will be > played... > > Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, 24th March 2009: > > ...When it comes to the next meeting of the WBFLC my opinion > will favour confirmation that the Director in his Law 70 > adjudication shall not implement *any* irregularity that is > embodied in the statement of claim and, shall proceed in such > circumstances exactly as the 2001 minute specifies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that rational debate on blml (especially by Steve > Willner) has convinced Grattan to modify his personal opinion of > last Thursday to a new personal opinion of today. > > I welcome this Senior movement by a Senior bridge bureaucrat; > this starkly contrasts with the unalterable personal opinions of > many others, such as myself and William Ewart Gladstone. > > Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (1804-1881): > > "Posterity will do justice to that unprincipled maniac > Gladstone -- extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, > hypocrisy and superstition; and with the one commanding > characteristic -- whether Prime Minister or Leader of the > Opposition, whether preaching, praying, speechifying or > scribbling -- never a gentleman." > +=+ Please make a distinction between a statement made in the persona of Secretary and one made in the persona of Me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 24 12:00:51 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:00:51 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior movement. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:55:02 -0500, wrote: > Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, 19th March 2009: > > ...For the present my position is circumscribed by the minute. > As a personal opinion, I think there is a case to be considered > for relaxing the provision in the minute in the case of the > first lead in the statement of the order in which cards will be > played... > > Grattan Endicott, personal opinion, 24th March 2009: > > ...When it comes to the next meeting of the WBFLC my opinion > will favour confirmation that the Director in his Law 70 > adjudication shall not implement *any* irregularity that is > embodied in the statement of claim and, shall proceed in such > circumstances exactly as the 2001 minute specifies. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Richard Hills: > > It seems to me that rational debate on blml (especially by Steve > Willner) has convinced Grattan to modify his personal opinion of > last Thursday to a new personal opinion of today. > > I welcome this Senior movement by a Senior bridge bureaucrat; > this starkly contrasts with the unalterable personal opinions of > many others, such as myself and William Ewart Gladstone. > > Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (1804-1881): > > "Posterity will do justice to that unprincipled maniac > Gladstone -- extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, > hypocrisy and superstition; and with the one commanding > characteristic -- whether Prime Minister or Leader of the > Opposition, whether preaching, praying, speechifying or > scribbling -- never a gentleman." A player must play a card that he has proposed playing. When the proposed play in a claim yields a revoke, Richard has claimed that the director has the obligation to correct the revoke. There is no contradiction here -- the first says the revoke must be made, but the second says the revoke is immediately corrected. When the proposed play yields a lead out of turn, the situation is different. There is no existant error or irregularity to correct until the lead out of turn occurs. Therefore, the 2001 minute can be viewed as restating the law CONCERNING REVOKES. (Or defective tricks or failure to play a penalty card.) However, it contradicts the law concerning leads out of turn embodied in the claim. As near as I can tell, this fits how players view the situation. Bob From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 24 12:21:32 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 06:21:32 -0500 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute Message-ID: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." (1 Nov 2001) Consider the phrase "since the irregularity is not to be accepted". This seems to be the basis for the entire opinion. In other words, the WBFLC was not trying to write new law. They were merely clarifying how the law works. It makes sense that the director would never accept an irregularity. And it makes sense that the opponents are not allowed to accept a revoke. But the laws allow the NOS to accept a lead out of turn. OR THE MINUTE IS ALREADY CORRECT. I like this idea. Suppose the claim embodies a lead out of turn. According to this minute, the claim proceeds until the lead out of turn actually occurs. Right? At this point, the opps either accept or reject the lead out of turn. The minute doesn't take this privilege away. Right? The minute just says that whether or not the lead out of turn is accepted, the director "rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." I don't think anyone has a problem with this. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Mar 24 12:01:17 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:01:17 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?That_2001_minute?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> I know it is hopeless, but ... From: "Robert Frick" > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up > to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs > and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that > point as though there were no statement of claim but should take into > account any later part of the claim that he considers still to be > valid." (1 Nov 2001) > > Consider the phrase "since the irregularity is not to be accepted". > This seems to be the basis for the entire opinion. In other words, the > WBFLC was not trying to write new law. They were merely clarifying how > the law works. > > It makes sense that the director would never accept an irregularity. > And it makes sense that the opponents are not allowed to accept a > revoke. But the laws allow the NOS to accept a lead out of turn. > > OR THE MINUTE IS ALREADY CORRECT. I like this idea. Suppose the claim > embodies a lead out of turn. According to this minute, the claim > proceeds until the lead out of turn actually occurs. Right? Wrong. The claim statement is "followed" till the point just before the irregularity occurs. > At this point, the opps either accept or reject the lead out of turn. > The minute doesn't take this privilege away. Right? Wrong. The minute expressis verbis says that the irregularity is not to be accepted. > The minute just says that whether or not the lead out of turn is > accepted, the director "rules from that point as though there were no > statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the > claim that he considers still to be valid." I don't think anyone has a > problem with this. Correct. Noone has a problem but you. From svenpran at online.no Tue Mar 24 13:21:39 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:21:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute In-Reply-To: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> References: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> On Behalf Of Peter Eidt ............... > > At this point, the opps either accept or reject the lead out of turn. > > The minute doesn't take this privilege away. Right? > > Wrong. The minute expressis verbis says that the irregularity > is not to be accepted. > > > The minute just says that whether or not the lead out of turn is > > accepted, the director "rules from that point as though there were no > > statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the > > claim that he considers still to be valid." I don't think anyone has a > > problem with this. > > Correct. Noone has a problem but you. And me. Let me repeat my example: The cards are: - - 2 3 - - 3 - - 9 8 2 - - A A - Hearts is trump and declarer faces his cards with the words: I play the little Diamond to my Diamond Ace and pull the outstanding trump with my trump Ace. LHO requests a trick for his small trump; the director is called and after hearing the claim statement repeated rules one trick to the defense. At a later time (within all relevant time limits) declarer realizes that the lead actually was to be from his own hand and not from dummy so he appeals this ruling claiming both tricks. His claim statement is evidence that he was aware of the outstanding trump, and on leading from his hand it would not be a "normal" play to cash the Diamond Ace before pulling the last trump. Defenders comment to this appeal is that they would of course accept the lead out of turn from dummy in this position. I believe Grattan has noted this example for his next meeting in the WBFLC, but how would you rule until we have a clarification? Regards Sven From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Mar 24 13:48:42 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:48:42 +0100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute In-Reply-To: <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> References: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> Message-ID: <49C8D6AA.3040808@ulb.ac.be> Sven Pran a ?crit : > And me. > > Let me repeat my example: > > The cards are: > - > - > 2 > 3 > - - > 3 - > - 9 8 > 2 - > - > A > A > - > > Hearts is trump and declarer faces his cards with the words: I play the > little Diamond to my Diamond Ace and pull the outstanding trump with my > trump Ace. > > LHO requests a trick for his small trump; the director is called and after > hearing the claim statement repeated rules one trick to the defense. > > At a later time (within all relevant time limits) declarer realizes that the > lead actually was to be from his own hand and not from dummy so he appeals > this ruling claiming both tricks. His claim statement is evidence that he > was aware of the outstanding trump, and on leading from his hand it would > not be a "normal" play to cash the Diamond Ace before pulling the last > trump. > > Defenders comment to this appeal is that they would of course accept the > lead out of turn from dummy in this position. > > I believe Grattan has noted this example for his next meeting in the WBFLC, > but how would you rule until we have a clarification? > AG : a claim is just a synopsis of play , that must be obeyed to the letter when determining the result of the deal. So, we look at the screen : North calls for the D2. Somebody objects. In accordance with L55A, West accepts the LOOT (or East covers). One trick to the defense. WTP ? Once you admit that a claim isn't the fall of a meteorite, but rather a statement as how the play would have proceeded if we had had more time to lose, this is obvious. What's the difference with a line of play that mentions a revoke ? That you can't accept a revoke. In that case, I would rule that, starting at the time of the attempted revoke, declarer has made no statement whatsoever. Best regards Alain From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Mar 24 14:02:16 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:02:16 +0100 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?That_2001_minute?= In-Reply-To: <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> References: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> Message-ID: <1Lm6Gm-0dZOLo0@fwd08.aul.t-online.de> From: "Sven Pran" > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > ............... > > > At this point, the opps either accept or reject the lead out of > > > turn. > > > The minute doesn't take this privilege away. Right? > > > > > > > Wrong. The minute expressis verbis says that the irregularity > > is not to be accepted. > > > > > The minute just says that whether or not the lead out of turn is > > > accepted, the director "rules from that point as though there were > > > no statement of claim but should take into account any later part > > > of the claim that he considers still to be valid." I don't think > > > anyone has a problem with this. > > > > > > > Correct. Noone has a problem but you. > > And me. > > Let me repeat my example: [diagram snipped, cause unreadable] > Hearts is trump and declarer faces his cards with the words: I play > the little Diamond to my Diamond Ace and pull the outstanding trump > with my trump Ace. I've never heard in my "career" a claimer saying he would _pull_ an outstanding trump in the last trick ... but ok ... > LHO requests a trick for his small trump; the director is called and > after hearing the claim statement repeated rules one trick to the > defense. > > At a later time (within all relevant time limits) declarer realizes > that the lead actually was to be from his own hand and not from dummy > so he appeals this ruling claiming both tricks. His claim statement is > evidence that he was aware of the outstanding trump, and on leading > from his hand it would not be a "normal" play to cash the Diamond Ace > before pulling the last trump. > > Defenders comment to this appeal is that they would of course accept > the lead out of turn from dummy in this position. > > I believe Grattan has noted this example for his next meeting in the > WBFLC, but how would you rule until we have a clarification? I would rule the claim under the premise that the 12th trick is played from the correct hand (declarer). If declarer shows his knowledge of the outstanding (smaller) trump he gets both tricks, otherwise he gets 1 trick only. All that following the above minute. No, I do not have any problem with that. Play ceased. Nobody accepts any irregularity anymore. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 24 14:05:13 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:05:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49C8DA89.6060207@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to > the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs and, > since the irregularity is not to be accepted, he rules from that point as > though there were no statement of claim but should take into account any > later part of the claim that he considers still to be valid." (1 Nov 2001) > Allow me to try to put this interpretation into a new light. What this interpretation is saying is that the WBFLC confirms that irregularities are to be seen as "breaking down" the claim statement. The WBFLC states categorically that some directors had it wrong when they ruled that a player should continue to play according to his claim statement, when that claim statement turned into an irregularity. A player stating "I'll ruff the third spade", when there are three spades in the hand that needs to ruff from, shall not be held to his claim statement, but shall get the same treatment as a player who sees one of his tricks being ruffed with a trump he had forgotten. It is presumed to be not normal to not overruff, and with this interpretation, we are also told that it is not normal to revoke. However, Grattan et.al. are now using this interpretation to say that it shall also be considered not normal to revoke when one of your cards is on the floor. I fail to see: 1) why ths should be so. I feel it to be very normal to not follow suit when I don't have a card of the suit in my hand. 2) why the interpretation should count in this case. I would like to read the full transcript of what was being said at the 2001 reunion. I doubt if this example (revoking from an incomplete hand) was mentioned at the meeting 3) why we don't simply lay this example on the table in Sao Paulo and hope the WBFLC members have sensible minds and are not blinded by a text that was written 8 years ago. Herman. > > Consider the phrase "since the irregularity is not to be accepted". This > seems to be the basis for the entire opinion. In other words, the WBFLC > was not trying to write new law. They were merely clarifying how the law > works. > > It makes sense that the director would never accept an irregularity. And > it makes sense that the opponents are not allowed to accept a revoke. But > the laws allow the NOS to accept a lead out of turn. > > OR THE MINUTE IS ALREADY CORRECT. I like this idea. Suppose the claim > embodies a lead out of turn. According to this minute, the claim proceeds > until the lead out of turn actually occurs. Right? > > At this point, the opps either accept or reject the lead out of turn. The > minute doesn't take this privilege away. Right? > > The minute just says that whether or not the lead out of turn is accepted, > the director "rules from that point as though there were no statement of > claim but should take into account any later part of the claim that he > considers still to be valid." I don't think anyone has a problem with this. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From axman22 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 24 14:33:21 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:33:21 -0500 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute In-Reply-To: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> References: <1Lm4Nh-0XgDOy0@fwd00.aul.t-online.de> <000001c9ac7b$159d6040$40d820c0$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 07:21 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blml] That 2001 minute > On Behalf Of Peter Eidt > ............... >> > At this point, the opps either accept or reject the lead out of turn. >> > The minute doesn't take this privilege away. Right? >> >> Wrong. The minute expressis verbis says that the irregularity >> is not to be accepted. >> >> > The minute just says that whether or not the lead out of turn is >> > accepted, the director "rules from that point as though there were no >> > statement of claim but should take into account any later part of the >> > claim that he considers still to be valid." I don't think anyone has a >> > problem with this. >> >> Correct. Noone has a problem but you. > > And me. > > Let me repeat my example: > > The cards are: > - > - > 2 > 3 > - - > 3 - > - 9 8 > 2 - > - > A > A > - > > Hearts is trump and declarer faces his cards with the words: I play the > little Diamond to my Diamond Ace and pull the outstanding trump with my > trump Ace. > > LHO requests a trick for his small trump; the director is called and after > hearing the claim statement repeated rules one trick to the defense. > > At a later time (within all relevant time limits) declarer realizes that > the > lead actually was to be from his own hand and not from dummy so he appeals > this ruling claiming both tricks. His claim statement is evidence that he > was aware of the outstanding trump, and on leading from his hand it would > not be a "normal" play to cash the Diamond Ace before pulling the last > trump. > > Defenders comment to this appeal is that they would of course accept the > lead out of turn from dummy in this position. > > I believe Grattan has noted this example for his next meeting in the > WBFLC, > but how would you rule until we have a clarification? > > Regards Sven I have an unshakable view that an underlying principle of bridge is that what the players do with the cards [in particular as juxtaposed against what can be done with the cards] is of the utmost importance. When a contestant plays out of turn or revokes there are ramifications- as there ought to be. And once a player is permitted to substitute a line of play for the trick by trick play of the cards I query what is the difference between a player committing to do something compared to physically doing it? I now am contemplating this with the idea of reviewing my focus upon deviant clarifications. I do not know from whence the principle of voiding irregularities within the clarification is derived. It has been around a long time so I merely have assumed that it is a correct principle- having stood the tests that time affords. I am willing to test, to poke, to prod such things to see what happens. At present my theory is that this principle is at best misguided. What I note so far is that indemnifying claimer for those things for which he otherwise would be culpable has at least the appearance to be in conflict with the principle of what the players do, counts. regards roger pewick From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 24 14:52:25 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:52:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <000801c9abc5$2c798c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net> <49C602F6.7020206@skynet.be><000a01c9ab91$602a1cb0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49C756AD.7090807@skynet.be> <000801c9abc5$2c798c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <311E01FE-A323-4582-B2EF-28943461D646@starpower.net> On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Grattan wrote: > +=+ The chief problem here is Herman's poor command > of the English language. The interpretation was not given > in any specific case. It was a statement of principle relating > to any 'irregularity embodied in a statement of claim'. Since > it has not been rescinded or modified it still applies because > the law has not altered subsequently in any particular that > would conflict with the interpretation. That seems wrong. If a minute makes a substantive change in the application of a law, and that law is subsequently reissued in its original form unaltered, that would normally be taken as rescinding the minute. At minimum, those who authorize the law to be reissued unaltered leave the situation ambiguous, when incorporating the minute into a revised law would effect the intent to reflect the minute unambiguously. Grattan is telling us that given a choice between assuming that the lawmakers knew what they doing and assuming that they were just too lazy to bother to revisit some particular law, we should assume the latter. I argue that the minute did indeed constitute a substantive change in the application of the law, by elevating the principle that no irregularity subsequent to the claim may be presumed in adjudication above the principle that the adjudication must follow the original claim statement for as long as it is possible to do so. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From bobpark at consolidated.net Tue Mar 24 15:13:04 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:13:04 -0400 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute In-Reply-To: <49C8DA89.6060207@skynet.be> References: <49C8DA89.6060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49C8EA70.3020305@consolidated.net> Herman De Wael wrote: >
Robert > Frick wrote: >> "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an >> irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows >> the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example >> a revoke) occurs and, since the irregularity is not to be accepted, >> he rules from that point as though there were no statement of claim >> but should take into account any later part of the claim that he >> considers still to be valid." (1 Nov 2001) >> > > Allow me to try to put this interpretation into a new light. > > What this interpretation is saying is that the WBFLC confirms that > irregularities are to be seen as "breaking down" the claim statement. > The WBFLC states categorically that some directors had it wrong when > they ruled that a player should continue to play according to his > claim statement, when that claim statement turned into an irregularity. > > A player stating "I'll ruff the third spade", when there are three > spades in the hand that needs to ruff from, shall not be held to his > claim statement, but shall get the same treatment as a player who sees > one of his tricks being ruffed with a trump he had forgotten. It is > presumed to be not normal to not overruff, and with this > interpretation, we are also told that it is not normal to revoke. > > However, Grattan et.al. are now using this interpretation to say that > it shall also be considered not normal to revoke when one of your > cards is on the floor. > ???... I thought he was saying it's not normal for the card to be on the floor. -- Bob Park From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 24 15:29:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:29:09 -0000 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minute References: <49C8DA89.6060207@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c9ac8d$07d36330$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:05 PM Subject: Re: [blml] That 2001 minute However, Grattan et.al. are now using this interpretation to say that it shall also be considered not normal to revoke when one of your cards is on the floor. > +=+ In this there is a failure to appreciate the difference between what it may be normal (in the sense of expected, common, or usual) to do and, on the other hand, what is a normal play within the meaning of the laws. There is also a persistent disregard in this thread of the fact that defenders have no control over the acceptance or otherwise of a play. The Director is required to adjudicate the claim, will hear defenders' objections but will make his adjudication without allowing of any irregularity that may be embodied in the statement of claim. ~ G ~ +=+ From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 24 20:04:20 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 11:04:20 -0800 Subject: [blml] Houston NABC+ Case 5 Message-ID: <51B8359B263548DC920CE2D756B92464@MARVLAPTOP> In the Daily Bulletin of Saturday, March 21, Houston NABC+ Appeal Case 5 involved hesitation Blackwood. http://www.acbl.org/nabc/bulletins/2009/01/9/ The AC had to decide whether a player had to accept a very slow signoff or could bid slam despite it. In the writeup the AC said: The definition of logical alternative is a bid that a significant number of that player's peers would seriously consider and "some" of those peers (who would seriously consider it) would actually make. What percentage is "some?" At a recent Laws Commission meeting, it was determined: "There was a consensus that in Law 16B1 where the word 'some' is used, it should suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than one, and the word 'significant' should suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than a minor proportion (e.g. 2/100) but less than a major proportion (e.g. 40/100)." [marv] Well, that's clear as mud, and I can't find it in any "recent" LC minutes. Isn't 90/100 a significant proportion? Is 3/100 possibly significant? Maybe NABC Appeals Committee Chairman Adam Wildavsky will cite the source for us. The LC, in defining an LA previously, had used the words "a substantial minority," while Kaplan's words in The Bridge World (Feb 1993) were "a significant proportion." The WBF Code of Practice uses Kaplan's words. An AC must estimate two numbers: (1) the percentage of peers who would seriously consider an action different from the one suggested, and (2) how many of those would actually take it. (1) must be significant (or substantial, take your pick) and then (2) must not be less than two. The 2/100 and 40/100 numbers (which I don't understand) for (1) perhaps mean that when the decision is very close in the opinion of the TD/AC, a small percentage may suffice, and when it is not close the percentage should be much higher. That makes sense. The AC writeup continues: The range of the committee members` estimates of how many of East's peers would bid 6H without the unauthorized information was between 85 and 95%. Ultimately, a majority of the committee decided that the percentage of East's peers who would pass 5H was high enough to make pass a logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 6H bid. Therefore, the table result was adjusted to 5H. [marv] despite the TD's contrary opinion.. The AC comprised five members, with Doug Doub (Adam's bridge partner) chairman. If their estimates averaged 90%, i.e., only 10% would pass 5H, the decision seems rather harsh considering their guidelines. Note that the decision was evidently not unanimous. Nevertheless I agree with it because, forget the math, passing would not be illogical. Also note that the decision favored the side of Dan "Warwick" Morse, another Wildavsky partner and a very forceful debater. No, I'm not implying any bias. Was the AC decision justified, based on its LA estimates (let's assume they're accurate)? Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Tue Mar 24 21:32:28 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:32:28 -0800 Subject: [blml] Houston NABC+ Case 5 Message-ID: <3C9BC7552ADE48F48171E485D9528575@MARVLAPTOP> I incorrectly wrote that the AC changed the TD ruling. Not true. I inadvertently crossed over to case 6 for the TD ruling. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 24 21:38:21 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:38:21 -0400 Subject: [blml] Houston NABC+ Case 5 In-Reply-To: <51B8359B263548DC920CE2D756B92464@MARVLAPTOP> References: <51B8359B263548DC920CE2D756B92464@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > In the Daily Bulletin of Saturday, March 21, Houston NABC+ Appeal > Case 5 involved hesitation Blackwood. > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/bulletins/2009/01/9/ The AC had to decide > whether a player had to accept a very slow signoff or could bid slam > despite it. In the writeup the AC said: > > The definition of logical alternative is a bid that a significant > number of that player's peers would seriously consider and "some" of > those peers (who would seriously consider it) would actually make. > What percentage is "some?" At a recent Laws Commission meeting, it > was determined: "There was a consensus that in Law 16B1 where the > word 'some' is used, it should suggest to the tournament director > and a committee more than one, and the word 'significant' should > suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than a minor > proportion (e.g. 2/100) but less than a major proportion (e.g. > 40/100)." > > [marv] Well, that's clear as mud, and I can't find it in any > "recent" LC minutes. Isn't 90/100 a significant proportion? Is 3/100 > possibly significant? Maybe NABC Appeals Committee Chairman Adam > Wildavsky will cite the source for us. The LC, in defining an LA > previously, had used the words "a substantial minority," while > Kaplan's words in The Bridge World (Feb 1993) were "a significant > proportion." The WBF Code of Practice uses Kaplan's words. > > An AC must estimate two numbers: (1) the percentage of peers who > would seriously consider an action different from the one suggested, > and (2) how many of those would actually take it. (1) must be > significant (or substantial, take your pick) and then (2) must not > be less than two. The 2/100 and 40/100 numbers (which I don't > understand) for (1) perhaps mean that when the decision is very > close in the opinion of the TD/AC, a small percentage may suffice, > and when it is not close the percentage should be much higher. That > makes sense. > > The AC writeup continues: > > The range of the committee members` estimates of how many of East's > peers would bid 6H without the unauthorized information was between > 85 and 95%. Ultimately, a majority of the committee decided that the > percentage of East's peers who would pass 5H was high enough to make > pass a logical alternative to the demonstrably suggested 6H bid. > Therefore, the table result was adjusted to 5H. > > [marv] despite the TD's contrary opinion.. The AC comprised five > members, with Doug Doub (Adam's bridge partner) chairman. If their > estimates averaged 90%, i.e., only 10% would pass 5H, the decision > seems rather harsh considering their guidelines. Note that the > decision was evidently not unanimous. Nevertheless I agree with it > because, forget the math, passing would not be illogical. Also note > that the decision favored the side of Dan "Warwick" Morse, another > Wildavsky partner and a very forceful debater. No, I'm not implying > any bias. > > Was the AC decision justified, based on its LA estimates (let's > assume they're accurate)? I suppose so. But Marv gets it right when he suggests that what we should do here is "forget the math". We don't want TDs or ACs making judgment rulings with calculators or slide rules. Let's not confuse precision with accuracy. If we start to think in terms of "we must estimate two numbers", turning a qualitively stated determination into a quantitative one, we're just going to get ourselves into trouble. Besides, if we really wanted to quantify the definition of LA, we would need not only a definitional algorithm for "significant number", but also one for "player's peers". It can't make sense to define anything by giving precise numerical percentages of a population whose definition is entirely subjective. We should accept the idea that "a bid that a significant number of that player's peers would seriously consider and 'some' of those peers... would actually make" is like pornography; we can't come up with a precise definition, but we know it when we see it. IME, people confronted with numbers in a decision-making context concentrate on the numbers, not the overall picture to be inferred from them. I am firmly convinced that we will get far *more* consistency in ruling on these cases if we just decide for ourselves whether a particular action does or does not strike us as being an LA than if we allow ourselves to get hung up splitting hairs over whether it would be considered by 2 out of 100 or 3 out of 100. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 24 22:14:32 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:14:32 -0000 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. References: <49C5618E.5040601@nhcc.net><49C602F6.7020206@skynet.be><000a01c9ab91$602a1cb0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49C756AD.7090807@skynet.be><000801c9abc5$2c798c00$0302a8c0@Mildred> <311E01FE-A323-4582-B2EF-28943461D646@starpower.net> Message-ID: <002d01c9acc5$891c0720$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 1:52 PM Subject: Re: [blml] Senior moment. > > I argue that the minute did indeed constitute a substantive change in > the application of the law, by elevating the principle that no > irregularity subsequent to the claim may be presumed in adjudication > above the principle that the adjudication must follow the original > claim statement for as long as it is possible to do so. > +=+ Ah well, the committee was intending merely to clarify the law not change it, but it is hardly worth arguing about - I will be patient until we can put the child to bed. ~ G ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 24 23:49:57 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:49:57 +1100 Subject: [blml] Senior movement. [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <311E01FE-A323-4582-B2EF-28943461D646@starpower.net> Message-ID: Admiral (and admirable) Elli Quinn: "Aim high. You may still miss the target but at least you will not shoot your foot off." Grattan Endicott: +=+ Please make a distinction between a statement made in the persona of Secretary and one made in the persona of Me. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Richard Hills: Indeed, I was repeatedly tautologically reiterating that it was "Grattan Endicott, personal opinion" which was mutably subject to change in response to cogent reasoning (as, for example, by Steve Willner). On the other hand, if the WBF Laws Committee adopted the Long John Silver interpretation of the Laws, then "Grattan Endicott, WBF LC Secretary" must immutably squawk: "Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!" Eric Landau: I argue that the minute did indeed constitute a substantive change Richard Hills: Incorrect. The WBF LC is prohibited from changing the Laws through its minutes; it may merely interpret the Laws (but any interpretation needs ratification by the WBF Executive). Any substantive changes are via the WBF Drafting Committee changing the wording of the Lawbook, as that committee did when it chose to completely rewrite Law 27 (again WBF Executive ratification was required). If, however, Eric actually intended the weaker argument that the 2001 minute contained an interpretation that was substantively contrary to "the reasonable person's" view on the claim Laws, then I still disagree. Definitions: "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by a player." Richard Hills: I would argue that "the reasonable person" would believe that normal procedure is a subset of correct procedure. If so, all irregularities are abnormal, Law 70D1 permits the replacement of an abnormal claim statement embodying an irregularity with an alternative normal line without any irregularity, and the 2001 minute was an unnecessary restatement of the obvious -- -- except, of course, for those TDs who are "unreasonable persons". :-) :-) Attached is a reasonable man's attempt to pay his taxes. 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 A.P. Herbert (1890-1971): Board of Inland Revenue v Haddock; Rex v Haddock Sir Joshua Hoot, KC (appearing for the Public Prosecutor): Sir Basil, these summonses, by leave of the Court, are being heard together, an unusual but convenient arrangement. The defendant, Mr Albert Haddock, has for many months, in spite of earnest endeavours on both sides, been unable to establish harmonious relations between himself and the Collector of Taxes. The Collector maintains that Mr Haddock should make over a large part of his earnings to the Government. Mr Haddock replies that the proportion demanded is excessive, in view of the inadequate services or consideration which he himself has received from that Government. After an exchange of endearing letters, telephone calls, and even cheques, the sum demanded was reduced to fifty-seven pounds; and about this sum the exchange of opinions continued. On the 31st of May the Collector was diverted from his respectable labours by the apparition of a noisy crowd outside his windows. The crowd, Sir Basil, had been attracted by Mr Haddock, who was leading a large white cow of malevolent aspect. On the back and sides of the cow were clearly stencilled in red ink the following words: TO THE LONDON AND LITERARY BANK, Ltd: Pay the Collector of Taxes, who is no gentleman, or Order, the sum of fifty-seven pounds (and may he rot!) L 57/10/0 ALBERT HADDOCK Mr Haddock conducted the cow into the Collector's office, tendered it to the Collector in payment of income tax and demanded a receipt. Sir Basil String: Did the cow bear the statutory stamp? Sir Joshua: Yes, a two-penny stamp was affixed to the dexter horn. The Collector declined to accept the cow, objecting that it would be difficult or even impossible to pay the cow into the bank. Mr Haddock, throughout the interview, maintained the friendliest demeanour; and he now remarked that the Collector could endorse the cow to any third party to whom he owed money, adding that there must be many persons in that position. The Collector then endeavoured to endorse the cheque... Sir Basil String: Really? Where? Sir Joshua: On the back of the cheque, Sir Basil, that is to say, on the abdomen of the cow. The cow, however, appeared to resent endorsement and adopted a menacing posture. The Collector, abandoning the attempt, declined finally to take the cheque. Mr Haddock led the cow away and was arrested in Trafalgar Square for causing an obstruction. He has also been summoned by the Board of Inland Revenue for non-payment of income tax. Mr Haddock's Testimony, Summarised Mr Haddock, in the witness box, said that he had tendered a cheque in payment of income tax, and if the Commissioners did not like his cheque they could do the other thing. A cheque was only an order to a bank to pay money to the person in possession of the cheque or a person named on the cheque. There was nothing in statute or customary law to say that that order must be written on a piece of paper of specified dimensions. A cheque, it was well known, could be written on a piece of notepaper. He himself had drawn cheques on the backs of menus, on napkins, on handkerchiefs, on the labels of wine bottles; all these cheques had been duly honoured by his bank and passed through the Bankers' Clearing House. He could see no distinction in law between a cheque written on a napkin and a cheque written on a cow. The essence of each document was a written order to pay money, made in the customary form and in accordance with statutory requirements as to stamps, etc. A cheque was admittedly not legal tender in the sense that it could not lawfully be refused; but it was accepted by custom as a legitimate form of payment. There were funds in his bank sufficient to meet the cow; the Commissioners might not like the cow, but, the cow having been tendered, they were estopped from charging him with failure to pay. As to the action of the police, Mr Haddock said it was a nice thing if in the heart of the commercial capital of the world a man could not convey a negotiable instrument down the street without being arrested. He has instituted proceedings against Constable Boot for false imprisonment. Cross-examined as to motive, the witness said that he had no cheque forms available and, being anxious to meet his obligations promptly, had made use of the only material to hand. Later he admitted that there might have been present in his mind a desire to make the Collector of Taxes ridiculous. But why not? There was no law against deriding the income tax. Sir Basil's Decision Sir Basil String (after hearing further evidence): This case has at least brought to the notice of the Court a citizen who is unusual both in his clarity of mind and integrity of behaviour. No thinking man can regard those parts of the Finance Acts which govern the income tax with anything but contempt. There may be something to be said - not much, but something - for taking from those who have inherited wealth a certain proportion of that wealth for the service of the State and the benefit of the poor and needy; and those who by their own ability, brains, industry, and exertion have earned money may reasonably be invited to surrender a small portion of it towards the maintenance of those public services by which they benefit, to wit, the Police, the Navy, the Army, the public sewers, and so forth. But to compel such individuals to bestow a large part of their earnings upon other individuals, who prosper by way of pensions, unemployment grants, or education allowances, is manifestly barbarous and indefensible. Yet this is the law. The original and only official basis of taxation was that individual citizens, in return for their money, received collectively some services from the State, the defence of their property and persons, the care of their health or the education of their children. All that has now gone. Citizen A, who has earned money, is commanded simply to give it to Citizens B, C, and D, who have not, and by force of habit this has come to be regarded as a normal and proper proceeding, whatever the comparative industry or merits of Citizens A, B, C, and D. To be alive has become a virtue, and the mere capacity to inflate the lungs entitles Citizen B to a substantial share in the laborious earnings of Citizen A. The defendant, Mr Haddock, repels and resents this doctrine, but, since it has received the sanction of Parliament, he dutifully complies with it. Hampered by practical difficulties, he took the first steps he could to discharge his legal obligations to the State. Paper was not available, so he employed, instead, a favourite cow. Now, there can be nothing obscene, offensive, or derogatory in the presentation of a cow to one man by another. Indeed, in certain parts of our Empire the cow is venerated as a sacred animal. Payment in kind is the oldest form of payment, and payment in kind more often than not meant payment in cattle. Indeed, during the Saxon period, Mr Haddock tells us, cattle were described as viva pecunia, or "living money", from their being received as payment on most occasions, at certain regulated prices. So that, whether the cheque was valid or not, it was impossible to doubt the validity of the cow; and whatever the Collector's distrust of the former it was at least his duty to accept the latter and credit Mr Haddock's account with its value. But, as Mr Haddock stated in his able argument, an order to pay is an order to pay, whether it is made on the back of an envelope or on the back of a cow. The evidence of the bank is that Mr Haddock's account was in funds. From every point of view, therefore, the Collector of Taxes did wrong, by custom if not by law, in refusing to take the proffered animal, and the summons issued at his instance will be discharged. As for the second charge, I hold again that Constable Boot did wrong. It cannot be unlawful to conduct a cow through the London streets. The horse, at the present time a much less useful animal, constantly appears in those streets without protest, and the motor-car, more unnatural and unattractive still, is more numerous than either animal. Much less can the cow be regarded as an improper or unlawful companion when it is invested (as I have shown) with all the dignity of a bill of exchange. If people choose to congregate in one place upon the apparition of Mr Haddock with a promissory cow, than Constable Boot should arrest the people, not Mr Haddock. Possibly, if Mr Haddock had paraded Cockspur Street with a paper cheque for one million pounds made payable to bearer, the crowd would have been as great, but that is not to say that Mr Haddock would have broken the law. In my judgment Mr Haddock has behaved throughout in the manner of a perfect knight, citizen, and taxpayer. The charge brought by the Crown is dismissed; and I hope with all my heart that in his action against Constable Boot Mr Haddock will be successful. What is the next case, please? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy 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 Mar 25 04:07:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:07:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Gerald Kaufman, How to be a Minister (1980): "Cabinet minutes are studied in Government Departments with the reverence generally reserved for sacred texts, and can be triumphantly produced to conclusively settle any arguments." Robert Frick: >OR THE MINUTE IS ALREADY CORRECT. Richard Hills: On a technical issue of blml Netiquette, when one wishes to emphasise the importance of particular words, it is correct to write: Either _Or the minute is already correct._ Or (*)*Or the minute is already correct.*(*) [One pair of asterisks for *correct* minutes, two pairs of asterisks for **correct** minutes. And, of course, a solitary asterisk for the Laws 70 and 71 _footnote_ partially defining the word "normal*".] In general, on mailing lists, writing in Block Capitals is deprecated as the written equivalent of Shouting. Robert Frick: >I like this idea. Suppose the claim embodies a lead out of turn. >According to this minute, the claim proceeds until the lead out of >turn actually occurs. Right? Richard Hills: Wrong. Until the **moment before** the irregularity actually occurs. For example, if: (a) declarer claims at the conclusion of trick 9, and (b) declarer's claim statement is normal* for tricks 10 and 11, and (c) the lead will be with dummy at the start of trick 12, but (d) declarer's claim statement is predicated on declarer leading from the closed hand at the start of trick 12, then (e) the lead will be with dummy at the start of trick 12. Steve Willner: >>In the past, the WBFLC endorsed a contrary position, taking "class >>of player" into account, but I believe that has been changed with >>the new Laws. Laws 70 and 71 footnote: * 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 25 04:37:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:37:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a private email, a blmler asked "Should I read all of the Lawbook or just the parts that support what I want to believe???" Imps Dlr: North Vul: Nil You, North, hold as dealer: T76 98 T83 QT932 What call do you make: (a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? or (b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? 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 Mar 25 05:49:34 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:49:34 -0500 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:07:54 -0500, wrote: > Robert Frick: > >> I like this idea. Suppose the claim embodies a lead out of turn. >> According to this minute, the claim proceeds until the lead out of >> turn actually occurs. Right? > > Richard Hills: > > Wrong. Until the **moment before** the irregularity actually occurs. Peter Eidt said the same thing. The actual minute: "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs...." AT WHICH THE IRREGULARITY OCCURS! Not before. This says nothing about before the irregularity occurs. (I am shouting.) > > For example, if: > > (a) declarer claims at the conclusion of trick 9, and > (b) declarer's claim statement is normal* for tricks 10 and 11, and > (c) the lead will be with dummy at the start of trick 12, but > (d) declarer's claim statement is predicated on declarer leading > from the closed hand at the start of trick 12, then > (e) the lead will be with dummy at the start of trick 12. The irregularity is a lead out of turn. It does not occur until there is a lead out of turn. (e) the lead is made from the wrong hand. (f) if the opponents do not accept this lead, the claimant is not held to the claiming statement and we consider normal lines of play from this point, as suggested in the 2001 minute. BTW, an unambiguous claiming statement is followed whether it is normal or not, unless it comes off the track. So your reference to normal in (b) is irrelevant. "normal" only kicks in when the claim statement is ambiguous or a wheel comes off. From jfusselman at gmail.com Wed Mar 25 05:28:45 2009 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 23:28:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2b1e598b0903242128n47d5c2dbra9e90571afd1b4e5@mail.gmail.com> Richard is lecturing Robert on proper netiquette? That earns my vote for funniest post of the year. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 25 05:31:39 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:31:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Robert Frick asserted: >Peter Eidt said the same thing. The actual minute: > >"The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity >embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up >to the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs..." > >AT WHICH THE IRREGULARITY OCCURS! Not before. This says nothing about >before the irregularity occurs. > >(I am shouting.) richard hills whispers: an error in grammar by mister frick. robert assumes that "up to the point" is identical in meaning to "up to and including the point", but that is not so. best wishes richard hills, aqua 5, workstation w550 telephone: 02 6223 8453 email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au recruitment section & diac social club movie tickets -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Mar 25 06:32:21 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:32:21 +1100 Subject: [blml] Funniest post of the year - 2004 [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In the "X as first call" thread, Kojak wrote: >So, I should now discard the law that is >applicable, substitute my greater knowledge and >prescience for a simple situation, and come up >with some manufactured solution. Richard James Hills replies: Kojak should not be critical of blmler sea- lawyers from coming up with minor manufactured solutions - that is peanuts compared to a major manufactured solution that a real lawyer could generate. See attached. Best wishes RJH * * * Letters of Marque : Heidi Bond's blog of life as a weird Michigan law student. December 09, 2003 Sauron: Offer and acceptance "As a small token of your friendship Sauron asks this," he said: "that you should find this thief," such was his word, "and get from him, willing or no, a little ring, the least of rings, that once he stole. It is but a trifle that Sauron fancies, and an earnest of your good will. Find it, and three rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old shall be returned to you, and the realm of Moria shall be yours for ever. Find only news of the thief, whether he still lives and where, and you shall have great reward and lasting friendship from the Lord. Refuse, and things will not seem so well. Do you refuse?" --The Fellowship of the Ring, in "The Council of Elrond" It seems to me that's really two, maybe three separate offers. The first seems to be unambiguously an offer for a unilateral contract (to find the supposedly piddling ring for three of the Dwarf rings of power plus the estate of Moria), to be completed by performance. Dain wouldn't want to bind himself to produce a ring; it's too risky. This seems like the straight-forward reward scenario envisioned as a prototypical offer for a unilateral contract. A few comments on material facts: You might say that Sauron should have disclosed the Balrog living in the deeps of Moria. But the Dwarves had ancient records of Moria which probably mention this, and Sauron is old enough to imagine that the Dwarves knew. It seems silly to require disclosure of a fact which, though admittedly material, is known to both parties, even though they never actually mention it to each other. The same sort of reasoning applies to the fact that the Dwarven rings are actually tainted (although Dwarves tend to resist his power a little better than men). The second (offer to exchange news of the whereabouts of the ring and owner in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship) also seems like a unilateral contract, for the same reason; it's not clear that the Dwarf-lords would be able to get information about the ring, and so again, it looks like a standard reward scenario. But then we get to the last statement. "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." There are (at least) two ways I can think of to view this. One possibility is that Sauron is not actually proposing unilateral contracts at all. After all, a reasonable interpretation of his offers would be that they were unilateral, but we're talking about Dark Lord Sauron who really wants to enslave all the free peoples. He might not contemplate reasonable contracts. In fact, given the ease with which agents of the Dark exact damages from lackeys who fail them, it seems possible that in Mordor, where the shadows lie, all contracts are bilateral, no matter how ridiculous it seems to contemplate such a thing. So maybe what he's saying is that if they fail to produce the ring or any information, he'll exact expectation damages. But this reading doesn't really make sense given the express language of the offer. The Messenger from Mordor isn't claiming that if they fail to deliver the ring they'll suffer expectation damages unto the fourth generation. He's saying "Refuse, and things will not seem so well." The "Refuse" comment modifies the offer. The law doesn't contemplate expectation damages if you don't accept an offer, although Sauron might. So it seems to me that the proper reading of this is that there are three bilateral contracts. You give me the One Ring in exchange for these three tainted Dwarven rings and Moria (bilateral contract) if you find the Ring (condition precedent). You give me information about the One Ring in exchange for great reward and lasting friendship (bilateral contract) if you find such information (condition precedent). You promise to make a good faith effort to find the One Ring or information about it, or I march my Wargs and goblin hordes to your doorstep and make mincemeat of you all (bilateral contract; if the Dwarves agreed to it, but wanted out they could argue duress). Now suppose Dain agrees to this, and finds the Ring. Could Sauron enforce this contract to get the Ring? If the contract were valid, this might be one of those things where specific performance would be allowed. The item is unique. And damages are nearly impossible to calculate. If they produce the Ring, Sauron rules over all the peoples of Middle Earth and orcs overrun everything. Sauron gets his body back. He can *blink* his eyes. He can use eye drops. If your eye had been wreathed in flame for millenia, how would you value that? Damages are clearly uncertain. And enforcing the contract wouldn't require that the court do much by way of babysitting. So it seems like a straight-forward contract for a unique item, where specific performance may be contemplated. On the other hand, there's a little problem with the Ring. See, Sauron can use it to enslave everybody. And courts don't like specific performance in cases which smack of personal servitude. The problem is, though, this is a case of first impression. Normally they eschew specific performance in the case of, say, employment contracts, where the proximate result of the contract is that someone is forced to do work they don't want to. We've never had a case of supernatural exchange, where you're forced to give over something that would enslave all the Free Peoples of the earth. Some courts might understandably balk at this result. But others would say that what Sauron does with the ring to enslave people really doesn't matter. After all, if this were a standard employment contract, and all you could do was collect money damages, you might very well use the money to employ someone else. The Dwarves would argue that this is disanalogous in the extreme, since you'd be employing someone who freely chose to be there. The Ring, they'd say, would rob Men, Hobbits, and Elves of their free will. Ultimately, I don't think Sauron should win this one; even the most conservative judges would balk at the idea that the right of contract is so sacred that we should throw away everyone's collective ability to make free choices. If anything should be void on grounds of public policy, this contract's it. But we can't underestimate the corrupting power of the Ring. It wants to go back to him, my preciousss. Luckily there are a few other issues that can be raised in defense of the Dwarves right to toss the Ring (if found) in Mount Doom rather than handing it over to a powerful, evil corrupt Maia. For one, there's a bit of a misunderstanding. See, Sauron labels this Ring as "the least of Rings" but really he can use it to enslave everyone. The Dwarves might well say "What? We thought you meant that plastic decoder thing that Isildur stole from your breakfast cereal - Elrond's had that as a memento of the War of the Ring forever! Damn. But we had no contract for this Ring." Unfortunately, it seems that there was evidence that the Great Lord made it clear exactly which Ring he meant. It's not listed here, but it's pretty clear that Sauron knew that the Dwarves knew that he was talking about Bilbo's ring. So the Dwarves knew which ring he meant, and Sauron knew which ring he meant, and if his description was possibly not as descriptive as we might like, there was clear evidence of intent. There was no misunderstanding about which Ring the parties intended. The Dwarves might claim that Sauron's description was fraudulent. After all, he did sort of describe it as "a trifle" when in fact it was the most powerful Ring ever. Sauron might try to get around this by saying, "Look, it was me. I'm pure evil. What were you expecting, fair and open dealing?" But it seems kind of bizarre to claim a contract wasn't fraudulent because you're known to be a fraud. Yes, the Dwarves shouldn't have trusted his statements. But just because it would be foolish for them to believe Sauron's valuation of the Ring doesn't mean that he's allowed to misrepresent. So Sauron's best argument was that he wasn't fraudulent at all. True, he undervalued the Ring. Significantly. But this is probably the standard sort of puff that appears in the bargaining process; each party downplays the worth of the item he wants, to try and get as good a price as possible. The Dwarves' best argument is that the contract is unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The One Ring itself is of incalculable value. The rings that the Dwarf-sires possessed of old are almost certainly worth more than $5,000,000 a piece, let alone $5,000. Plus Moria is a vast mining tract, so the promise to hand it over can't be conveyed by an oral contract. It's hard to imagine that a disembodied all-seeing eye wreathed in flame can produce a signed writing, and besides, all I see are oral conversations in hissed whispers, maybe a palant?r conversation or two - nothing, really, that would satisfy the memorandum required by the Statute. I was going to go on and do the bit where Dain answers and discuss whether it's acceptance (it's not) or refusal (it's not) or a counter-offer (it's not) but quite frankly, what I did above was plenty exhausting (and admittedly strained in parts, but hey, my preciouss, what did you expect? The contracts case, it hurts us, yess it does). -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 25 08:57:08 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:57:08 +0100 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/3/25 : > > In a private email, a blmler asked > > "Should I read all of the Lawbook or just the parts that support > what I want to believe???" > > Imps > Dlr: North > Vul: Nil > > You, North, hold as dealer: > > T76 > 98 > T83 > QT932 > > What call do you make: > > (a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? > > or > > (b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open > Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? > I would pass, regardless of event. I know some who might preempt. > > Best wishes > > Richard Hills, > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Mar 25 09:04:22 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:04:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/3/25 Robert Frick : > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:07:54 -0500, wrote: > >> Robert Frick: >> >>> I like this idea. Suppose the claim embodies a lead out of turn. >>> According to this minute, the claim proceeds until the lead out of >>> turn actually occurs. Right? >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Wrong. ?Until the **moment before** the irregularity actually occurs. > > Peter Eidt said the same thing. The actual minute: > > "The committee agreed that under Law 70 when there is an irregularity > embodied in a statement of claim the Director follows the statement up to > the point at which the irregularity (for example a revoke) occurs...." > > AT WHICH THE IRREGULARITY OCCURS! Not before. This says nothing about > before the irregularity occurs. > > (I am shouting.) > >> >> For example, if: >> >> (a) declarer claims at the conclusion of trick 9, and >> (b) declarer's claim statement is normal* for tricks 10 and 11, and >> (c) the lead will be with dummy at the start of trick 12, but >> (d) declarer's claim statement is predicated on declarer leading >> ? ? from the closed hand at the start of trick 12, then >> (e) the lead will be with dummy at the start of trick 12. > > The irregularity is a lead out of turn. It does not occur until there is a > lead out of turn. > > (e) the lead is made from the wrong hand. > (f) if the opponents do not accept this lead, Where in the laws do you find anything that allows the opponents to have any say in this matter? (for the time disregarding the fact that you're anyway wrong regarding the timing, re the 2001 minute, see Richard's post). -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > the claimant is not held to > the claiming statement and we consider normal lines of play from this > point, as suggested in the 2001 minute. > > BTW, an unambiguous claiming statement is followed whether it is normal or > not, unless it comes off the track. So your reference to normal in (b) is > irrelevant. "normal" only kicks in when the claim statement is ambiguous > or a wheel comes off. > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Mar 25 10:24:15 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:24:15 -0000 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] >> >> The irregularity is a lead out of turn. It does not occur until there is >> a >> lead out of turn. >> >> (e) the lead is made from the wrong hand. >> (f) if the opponents do not accept this lead, > > Where in the laws do you find anything that allows the opponents to > have any say in this matter? > (for the time disregarding the fact that you're anyway wrong regarding > the timing, re the 2001 minute, see Richard's post). > +=+ Robert could have resolved his own confusion by quoting the remainder of the minute. The proposed irregularity "is not to be accepted and he rules from that point" etc. A statement of claim specifies how the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. The Director's adjudication determines whether the proposed line of play or defence is successful. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From mv.phaff at quicknet.nl Wed Mar 25 11:57:55 2009 From: mv.phaff at quicknet.nl (Martin Phaff) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:57:55 +0100 Subject: [blml] authorized information [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <4C69A85A7DF742E985AB8F37DB1FB8C7@koffiepot> Message-ID: <49E5142046004A02A1C9E9ED666C561E@koffiepot> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] Namens richard.hills at immi.gov.au Verzonden: maandag 23 maart 2009 23:39 Aan: Bridge Laws Mailing List Onderwerp: Re: [blml] authorized information [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Marcus Einfeld, Federal Court Judge 1986-2001: "That, that was a lie, but you know that was a lie to a journalist, I, I didn't quite feel the same obligation, if you don't mind my saying so." [snip] Sarah Ferguson, journalist: "No. All I'm asking you is whether you told deliberate lies in those cases?" Marcus Einfeld, Federal Court Judge 1986-2001: "No." Sarah Ferguson, journalist: "And that you would remember?" Marcus Einfeld, Federal Court Judge 1986-2001: "No. That I would remember and of course I didn't, definitely not." Sarah Ferguson, journalist (voiceover): "If Einfeld's case had gone to trial, the evidence of a pattern of dishonest behaviour would have been aired in court. Before that could happen, he did a deal with the prosecutor and pleaded guilty to the events of 2006. It was enough to put him in jail." Martin Phaff: >Casus: >To answer questions from the opponents the players of the declaring >side consult their system card during the clarification period >(40B2b). It appears that the declaring side has given misinformation, >the players of the declaring side clearly don't know their own >system. Based on 21B the auction is restarted. > >According to 16A1c the information from their system card is >authorized information to the former declaring side to be. >Right? Richard Hills: Hi, Martin. Welcome to blml. Do you have any cats? An excellent question. It seems to me that what is _relevantly_ written on the system cards of the partners of the former declaring side is AI to all four players. However, it seems to me that what was originally _irrelevant_ but is now _relevant_ is not AI to the new defending side. One obvious example of UI to the offending side would be their system cards' listing of defensive leads and signals. 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 Hello Richard, We used to have four cats, Abyssinians, they all reached the age of seventeen years. Nowadays we have a very old Leonberger, sixty kilograms of gentleness and kindness. Your view to separate AI and UI looks sound, but I am afraid there is no way to prevent the former declaring side from using the clarification period to recall their system and subsequently take advantage of their recalling. Best wishes, Martin Phaff. From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 25 14:11:08 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:11:08 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: Wherein I attempt to state principles I have taken for granted. The Director is bound by the claiming statement, unless a wheel falls off (claimant does not win a trick he expects to win, declarer cannot lead from the hand he expects to lead from, or declarer cannot legally play a card declarer proposes playing). L70C, L70D, and L70E apply only to ambiguities in the claiming statement or when a wheel falls off. The normal rules of play apply to the claim, except where specified in the claiming laws. This includes that the cards are organized into tricks; each player must play a card to each trick; there is a winner of each trick, defined in the normal way; the winner of a trick leads to the next trick. From jimfox00 at cox.net Wed Mar 25 13:45:37 2009 From: jimfox00 at cox.net (Jim Fox) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:45:37 -0400 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What does 'one' do if "one wants to shout". -----Original Message----- From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of richard.hills at immi.gov.au Sent: 03/24/2009 11:08 PM To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In general, on mailing lists, writing in Block Capitals is deprecated as the written equivalent of Shouting. From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 25 14:27:59 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:27:59 -0400 Subject: [blml] Senior movement. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0824DCFC-D96D-4585-8801-3ED5465C51D0@starpower.net> On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:49 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Eric Landau: > > I argue that the minute did indeed constitute a substantive > change > > Richard Hills: > > Incorrect. The WBF LC is prohibited from changing the Laws > through its minutes; it may merely interpret the Laws (but > any interpretation needs ratification by the WBF Executive). > > Any substantive changes are via the WBF Drafting Committee > changing the wording of the Lawbook, as that committee did > when it chose to completely rewrite Law 27 (again WBF > Executive ratification was required). > > If, however, Eric actually intended the weaker argument > that the 2001 minute contained an interpretation that was > substantively contrary to "the reasonable person's" view on > the claim Laws, then I still disagree. > > Definitions: > > "Irregularity - a deviation from correct procedure inclusive > of, but not limited to, those which involve an infraction by > a player." > > Richard Hills: > > I would argue that "the reasonable person" would believe > that normal procedure is a subset of correct procedure. If > so, all irregularities are abnormal, Law 70D1 permits the > replacement of an abnormal claim statement embodying an > irregularity with an alternative normal line without any > irregularity, and the 2001 minute was an unnecessary > restatement of the obvious -- L70D1, read straightforwardly, does not concern itself with the "normality" of all possible lines of play subsequent to the claim, but only to those "line[s] of play not embraced in the original clarification statement". Similarly, L70E1 applies only to "unstated line[s] of play". Nothing in TFLB to suggests that *stated* lines may be altered if they are not "normal", irregularity-free, or even not irrational. If not for the minute, why would anyone think otherwise? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Mar 25 14:38:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:38:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 24, 2009, at 11:07 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Steve Willner: > >>> In the past, the WBFLC endorsed a contrary position, taking "class >>> of player" into account, but I believe that has been changed with >>> the new Laws. > > Laws 70 and 71 footnote: > > * For the purposes of Laws 70 and 71, "normal" includes play that > would be careless or inferior for the _class of player_ involved. Steve is correct. Actually the WBFLC changed (some would say clarified; this was disputed at the time) its position under the 1997 laws (formally rewording the footnote) so that "class of player" mattered, but then changed it back in 2008 (rewriting the footnote yet again). The footnote says that a player of a "class" for whom a particular play might otherwise be regarded as abnormally "careless of inferior" is to be treated the same as a player of lesser class for whom it would be unquestionably normal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Mar 25 20:39:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:39:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet References: Message-ID: <6EC2033BCA4F437B957602E004AC924F@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Eric Landau" > Steve is correct. Actually the WBFLC changed (some would say > clarified; this was disputed at the time) its position under the > 1997 > laws (formally rewording the footnote) so that "class of player" > mattered, but then changed it back in 2008 (rewriting the footnote > yet again). The footnote says that a player of a "class" for whom > a > particular play might otherwise be regarded as abnormally > "careless > of inferior" is to be treated the same as a player of lesser class > for whom it would be unquestionably normal. > Fine. Now how is the class of an unknown player determined? In an NABC+ Open Pairs qualifying sessions the range of ability is unbelievably wide. With players from all over ACBL-land, and in fact from all over the world, how can a TD/AC possibly measure the "calibre" of an unknown player, with masterpoints no longer a valid measure. They can't, so the assumed "class" should be that of a generic typical player in an event. That makes for identical rulings for identical situations, which we mere players have always wanted. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Mar 25 21:52:56 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:52:56 -0500 Subject: [blml] Senior moment. In-Reply-To: <49C89716.1070401@skynet.be> References: <200903231531.n2NFV4kn012097@cfa.harvard.edu> <49C85C1C.9020300@nhcc.net> <49C89716.1070401@skynet.be> Message-ID: I think the outcome is the same, in a claim, whether or not the revoke is allowed. xx x -- x AKx Q A -- Hearts are trump; the defenders have no trumps. Declarer claims, saying he will cash two spades, ruff a spade in dummy, and then his hand is good. Sooner or later, a third spade is discovered belonging to dummy. So, adhering to the claim, the ace and king of spades are cashed and a small spade is led towards dummy. If we prevent the revoke, the defense gets one trick. If we allow the revoke, the defense gets no more tricks. There is no penalty for revoke by the dummy, so we rectify for equity, which means, what would have happened had dummy not revoked? The answer is that defense would have won one trick, the spade trick. Same outcome. If we reverse hands so that the top hand is declarer ("I am ruffing a spade in hand and then dummy is good"), then there would have been a two-trick penalty had the hand been played out. However, in a claim, declarer's hand is faced. So if we allow the revoke in a claim, we rectify only for equity. I suspect that the outcome is always the same whether or not the revoke is allowed. Psychologically, the two differ in two important ways. As I follow the laws, the revoke occurs because declarer has designated that that card be played. But it is very convoluted to say that the revoke occurs and then we figure out what would have happened had the revoke not occurred. It is much simpler to say that the revoke just doesn't occur. Which of course is just what that 2001 Minute says. It seems to be acknowledged that the 2001 Minute does not change the law, it just clarifies it. However, if you think of a revoke in this simpler manner, you can run into problems (IMO) for the lead out of turn. When I follow the laws, I get that the lead out of turn occurs (because it was designated), and then the lead can be accepted or rejected. If it is rejected, the claim statement loses a wheel and need not be followed (which is what the 2001 minute says). But if you think that a revoke can't occur in the claim, then it becomes natural to follow this aphorism and conclude that a lead out of turn also cannot occur. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Wed Mar 25 22:11:53 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:11:53 +0000 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet In-Reply-To: <6EC2033BCA4F437B957602E004AC924F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6EC2033BCA4F437B957602E004AC924F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49CA9E19.4050003@talktalk.net> [Marvin French] Fine. Now how is the class of an unknown player determined? In an NABC+ Open Pairs qualifying sessions the range of ability is unbelievably wide. With players from all over ACBL-land, and in fact from all over the world, how can a TD/AC possibly measure the "calibre" of an unknown player, with masterpoints no longer a valid measure. They can't, so the assumed "class" should be that of a generic typical player in an event. That makes for identical rulings for identical situations, which we mere players have always wanted. [Nigel] .., and so say all of us ... well *most* of us ... some law-makers and directors agree with ... [Richard Hills quoting Ralph Waldo Emerson] *A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds* From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Mar 26 02:43:46 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:43:46 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49C21752.3060204@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Marv French asserted: >Fine. Now how is the class of an unknown player determined? In an >NABC+ Open Pairs qualifying sessions the range of ability is >unbelievably wide. With players from all over ACBL-land, and in >fact from all over the world, how can a TD/AC possibly measure >the "calibre" of an unknown player, with masterpoints no longer a >valid measure. > >They can't, Richard Hills quibbles: They can. Firstly "unknown" is begging the question, petitio principii. Very few bridge players are totally obscure in the modern era of Google and Facebook. Marv French asserted: >so the assumed "class" should be that of a generic typical player >in an event. That makes for identical rulings for identical >situations, which we mere players have always wanted. Richard Hills quibbles: If the "unknown" visitor Marv French played in a South Canberra walk-in pairs, then claimed on a Double Squeeze, as Director I would rule it irrelevant that most players at the South Canberra Bridge Club think that a Double Squeeze is a brand of organic orange juice. Rather, I would rule Marv's claim to be valid, since I know that the "unknown" visitor has thoroughly analysed all sorts of squeezes (including improving squeeze nomenclature) on his website. Secondly, if a player truly is "unknown", her calibre very quickly becomes known through the nature of her responses to the questions posed by the Director. For example -> Eric Landau (May 2005): [snip] >>>>In my milieu, however, I do more than occasionally play in >>>>tournaments against complete strangers. >>>> >>>>If disclosure requirements are dependent on who "the actual >>>>current opponents" are, what am I to do? [snip] Richard Hills (May 2005): >>>In my opinion, Eric Landau's objection, "How can I tell, in a >>>face-to-face encounter in a tournament, whether or not my >>>unknown opponent is a patzer?" is a furphy. John Probst (May 2005): >>As I mentioned, I had a game in Toronto at Kate B-somethings's >>with she-who-must-be-obeyed. Mise en scene: LHO male mid 30's, RHO >>dowager witch. I'm in 4S on a 5 bid auction. He rises SA when I >>lead from hand. He looked ok, so I said "How many master points >>have you got?". "About as many as you if you ask the question!" So >>the discussion went on very happily for a while, and eventually I >>played the hand out per the percentages which was correct. At the >>end SWMBO looked vacant and DW asked "Why did you take so long over >>a routine hand?". Happily LHO said "The Limey and I were having a >>joke" which seemed to shut her up. >> >>Was my question illegal? (since I was trying to elicit whether it >>was her pro getting paid, or her son being kind) His answer told >>me fwiw. Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 26 04:14:58 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:14:58 +1100 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >>Imps >>Dlr: North >>Vul: Nil >> >>You, North, hold as dealer: >> >>T76 >>98 >>T83 >>QT932 >> >>What call do you make: >> >>(a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? >> >>or >> >>(b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open >>Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? Harald Skj?ran >I would pass, regardless of event. >I know some who might preempt. Richard Hills: As a matter of off-topic bidding theory, it seems to me (and also seemed to Edgar Kaplan) that the modern style of random pre- empting, where a 3C opening promises a trump suit of either QT932 or KQJT987, makes life impossibly difficult for partner while not particularly deceiving the opponents. So, in accordance with the style of the late great "Plum" Meredith, I instead chose the percentage call of a 1S opening bid. (Slightly riskier for me than for "Plum", since I play 5- card majors in this partnership, while "Plum" notionally played 4-card majors.) LHO passed, pard bid 1NT artificial game force relay (my system notes for Symmetric Relay will be emailed on request), duly alerted by me, RHO passed, I passed, pard frowned and LHO passed. In accordance with ABF alerting protocol, before RHO selected her opening lead, I asked her if she would like an explanation of the alerted 1NT (given that she may have assumed that the alert had a normal meaning, e.g. semi-forcing 1NT, which was consistent with the auction). But when I duly explained that 1NT was forcing to game neither LHO nor RHO bothered to summon the Director. (As they both had many times represented Australia in international Open and Women's championships, respectively, they were well aware that psyching was usually completely Lawful.) As luck would have it, pard held a balanced 20 hcp, so we scored +120 in 1NT for a flat board. The questions of Law are: (x) My most recent psyche as dealer in this partnership had been at the beginning of last September, in the Asia Cup at Surfers Paradise (written up on blml as soon as I returned to Canberra). Is a half-year gap between opening bid psyches sufficiently long to avoid the strictures of Law 40C1? That is, if pard has a general background awareness that I am a deranged loony psycher, would Law 40C1 not apply whenever my internationalist opponents have the identical general background awareness? (y) Does our agreement to use 1NT as an artificial game force relay become an unLawful agreement after my 1S psyche, since it is a "psychic control" which allowed me to press the eject button at the lowest possible level? Best wishes R. J. 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 Thu Mar 26 06:28:35 2009 From: ardelm at optusnet.com.au (Tony Musgrove) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:28:35 +1100 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200903260528.n2Q5SYnF008085@mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au> At 02:14 PM 26/03/2009, you wrote: > >>Imps > >>Dlr: North > >>Vul: Nil > >> > >>You, North, hold as dealer: > >> > >>T76 > >>98 > >>T83 > >>QT932 > >> > >>What call do you make: > >> > >>(a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? > >> > >>or > >> > >>(b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open > >>Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? DAMN, I was going to bid 1S, but I thought there was going to be a trick to it, Cheers, Tony (Sydney) From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 26 10:27:03 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:27:03 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CB4A67.3060609@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > They can. > > Firstly "unknown" is begging the question, petitio principii. > Very few bridge players are totally obscure in the modern era of > Google and Facebook. > > AG : seems like the avarage age of bridge players isn't the same in your country. But if somebody is really unknown and not on travel, yuo may assume he isn't an eagle. > > If the "unknown" visitor Marv French played in a South Canberra > walk-in pairs, then claimed on a Double Squeeze, as Director I > would rule it irrelevant that most players at the South Canberra > Bridge Club think that a Double Squeeze is a brand of organic > orange juice. Rather, I would rule Marv's claim to be valid, > since I know that the "unknown" visitor has thoroughly analysed all > sorts of squeezes (including improving squeeze nomenclature) on his > website. > AG : you're absolutely right. However, if the TD's job included looking at the player's site, it wouldn't make it any easier. BTW, you'll find about 12 lines about bridge on my website, and they're of little use. > Secondly, if a player truly is "unknown", her calibre very quickly > becomes known through the nature of her responses to the questions > posed by the Director. > AG : IBTD. The average player is better in this exercise than at the table, and good bridge lawyers are often bad players. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Mar 26 10:30:14 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:30:14 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CB4B26.6000305@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Secondly, if a player truly is "unknown", her calibre very quickly > becomes known through the nature of her responses to the questions > posed by the Director. > AG : a last point : a player's ability isn't uniform. I'm an expert bidder, a moderate card player and a very poor analyst. Can all this be ascertained by a few questions ? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Mar 26 11:04:08 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:04:08 -0000 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49CB4B26.6000305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <001b01c9adfa$469048e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:30 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Secondly, if a player truly is "unknown", her calibre very quickly > becomes known through the nature of her responses to the questions > posed by the Director. > AG : a last point : a player's ability isn't uniform. I'm an expert bidder, a moderate card player and a very poor analyst. Can all this be ascertained by a few questions ? +=+ Directors have been assessing 'class of player' at least since the words were introduced in the 1987 laws. Players in general have always had the judgement to make in choosing some plays. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 26 14:16:05 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:16:05 -0500 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:43:46 -0500, wrote: > Marv French asserted: > >> Fine. Now how is the class of an unknown player determined? In an >> NABC+ Open Pairs qualifying sessions the range of ability is >> unbelievably wide. With players from all over ACBL-land, and in >> fact from all over the world, how can a TD/AC possibly measure >> the "calibre" of an unknown player, with masterpoints no longer a >> valid measure. >> >> They can't, > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > They can. > > Firstly "unknown" is begging the question, petitio principii. > Very few bridge players are totally obscure in the modern era of > Google and Facebook. > > Marv French asserted: > >> so the assumed "class" should be that of a generic typical player >> in an event. That makes for identical rulings for identical >> situations, which we mere players have always wanted. > > Richard Hills quibbles: > > If the "unknown" visitor Marv French played in a South Canberra > walk-in pairs, then claimed on a Double Squeeze, as Director I > would rule it irrelevant that most players at the South Canberra > Bridge Club think that a Double Squeeze is a brand of organic > orange juice. Rather, I would rule Marv's claim to be valid, > since I know that the "unknown" visitor has thoroughly analysed all > sorts of squeezes (including improving squeeze nomenclature) on his > website. Sometimes squeezes (including double squeezes) require a decision. For example, your threat is the 6 of clubs and LHO is known to have the King of clubs. On your final free winner LHO throws the king of clubs. Is your six now good? Or has LHO craftily saved the seven of clubs? Fortunately, Marv will know not to claim in one of those positions. From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 26 13:46:20 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:46:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet In-Reply-To: <6EC2033BCA4F437B957602E004AC924F@MARVLAPTOP> References: <6EC2033BCA4F437B957602E004AC924F@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <3725272C-C939-4CF2-BB65-6FAC0E747AE9@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2009, at 3:39 PM, Marvin L French wrote: > From: "Eric Landau" > >> Steve is correct. Actually the WBFLC changed (some would say >> clarified; this was disputed at the time) its position under the >> 1997 >> laws (formally rewording the footnote) so that "class of player" >> mattered, but then changed it back in 2008 (rewriting the footnote >> yet again). The footnote says that a player of a "class" for whom >> a >> particular play might otherwise be regarded as abnormally >> "careless >> of inferior" is to be treated the same as a player of lesser class >> for whom it would be unquestionably normal. > > Fine. Now how is the class of an unknown player determined? In an > NABC+ Open Pairs qualifying sessions the range of ability is > unbelievably wide. With players from all over ACBL-land, and in fact > from all over the world, how can a TD/AC possibly measure the > "calibre" of an unknown player, with masterpoints no longer a valid > measure. Got me. But, as I wrote above, we no longer care; with the new version of the footnote introduced in the 2008 FLB, "class of player" is no longer relevant to the adjudicated outcome. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 26 14:09:34 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:09:34 -0400 Subject: [blml] Q & A In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <35DB879D-C7E3-40DB-88F6-6C29EB44BD47@starpower.net> On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:14 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >>> Imps >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: Nil >>> >>> You, North, hold as dealer: >>> >>> T76 >>> 98 >>> T83 >>> QT932 >>> >>> What call do you make: >>> >>> (a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? >>> >>> or >>> >>> (b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open >>> Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? > > Harald Skj?ran > >> I would pass, regardless of event. >> I know some who might preempt. > > Richard Hills: > > As a matter of off-topic bidding theory, it seems to me (and also > seemed to Edgar Kaplan) that the modern style of random pre- > empting, where a 3C opening promises a trump suit of either QT932 > or KQJT987, makes life impossibly difficult for partner while not > particularly deceiving the opponents. > > So, in accordance with the style of the late great "Plum" > Meredith, I instead chose the percentage call of a 1S opening > bid. (Slightly riskier for me than for "Plum", since I play 5- > card majors in this partnership, while "Plum" notionally played > 4-card majors.) > > LHO passed, pard bid 1NT artificial game force relay (my system > notes for Symmetric Relay will be emailed on request), duly > alerted by me, RHO passed, I passed, pard frowned and LHO passed. > > In accordance with ABF alerting protocol, before RHO selected her > opening lead, I asked her if she would like an explanation of the > alerted 1NT (given that she may have assumed that the alert had a > normal meaning, e.g. semi-forcing 1NT, which was consistent with > the auction). But when I duly explained that 1NT was forcing to > game neither LHO nor RHO bothered to summon the Director. (As > they both had many times represented Australia in international > Open and Women's championships, respectively, they were well > aware that psyching was usually completely Lawful.) > > As luck would have it, pard held a balanced 20 hcp, so we scored > +120 in 1NT for a flat board. > > The questions of Law are: > > (x) My most recent psyche as dealer in this partnership had been > at the beginning of last September, in the Asia Cup at Surfers > Paradise (written up on blml as soon as I returned to Canberra). > Is a half-year gap between opening bid psyches sufficiently long > to avoid the strictures of Law 40C1? That is, if pard has a > general background awareness that I am a deranged loony psycher, > would Law 40C1 not apply whenever my internationalist opponents > have the identical general background awareness? > > (y) Does our agreement to use 1NT as an artificial game force > relay become an unLawful agreement after my 1S psyche, since it > is a "psychic control" which allowed me to press the eject > button at the lowest possible level? I'm not aware of any "official" definition of a "psychic control", but in the sense that Roth and Stone used the term originally (over half a century ago), this would not be one. In their terminology, a psychic control was an asking bid that would disambiguate the "controlled psych" from a full opening bid and allow the auction to continue in either case. Passing a game-forcing bid to reveal a psych was, in those days, an ordinary everyday occurence, nothing so special as to be given a name, whereas "controlled psychs" were new in the Roth-Stone system. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 26 14:14:39 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:14:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49CB4B26.6000305@ulb.ac.be> References: <49CB4B26.6000305@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit > >> Secondly, if a player truly is "unknown", her calibre very quickly >> becomes known through the nature of her responses to the questions >> posed by the Director. > > AG : a last point : a player's ability isn't uniform. > > I'm an expert bidder, a moderate card player and a very poor analyst. > > Can all this be ascertained by a few questions ? An additional point: a player's ability isn't uniform. I might be an expert bidder and card player on one of my good days, and a hopeless patzer the next. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Mar 26 15:37:24 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:37:24 -0500 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:24:15 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " God has delegated himself to a > million deputies." - Emerson. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Harald Skj?ran" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 8:04 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > >>> >>> The irregularity is a lead out of turn. It does not occur until there >>> is >>> a >>> lead out of turn. >>> >>> (e) the lead is made from the wrong hand. >>> (f) if the opponents do not accept this lead, >> >> Where in the laws do you find anything that allows the opponents to >> have any say in this matter? >> (for the time disregarding the fact that you're anyway wrong regarding >> the timing, re the 2001 minute, see Richard's post). >> > +=+ Robert could have resolved his own confusion by quoting > the remainder of the minute. The proposed irregularity "is not > to be accepted and he rules from that point" etc. > A statement of claim specifies how the claimer proposes > to win the tricks claimed. The Director's adjudication determines > whether the proposed line of play or defence is successful. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Hi. I am running through my notes, and this is not quite a fair characterization of the 2001 minute. The minute does NOT say that "the proposed irregularity is not to be accepted." It says "since the proposed irregularity is not to be accepted..." Grattan the person's posting makes it sound like the minute is making new law: Whatever might be in the lawbook, the WBFLC is stating that the proposed irregularity is not to be accepted. The actual law is written as though it is already in the laws that the irregularity cannot be accepted. Then, the whole point of the minute is to state what happens when an irregularity cannot be followed. And then the minute is just clarifying law. Which is what Grattan has claimed. The latter interpretation still implies that the WBFLC thought that all irregularities were not to be accepted. But maybe they were focusing on revokes in particular and did not think about leads out of turn. (Grattan: "In fact I am quite sure the intention was/is not to allow of a revoke, inadvertent or otherwise, in adjudicating a claim." For example, if someone says to me "You do not need to bring your camera, since Chris will be there to take pictures", that says both that I don't need to bring my camera and that Chris won't be there. But if I later find out that Chris is sick and won't be there, then I will bring my camera. So that is why it is an issue if the laws actually say that irregularities cannot occur in a claim. From henk at ripe.net Thu Mar 26 21:21:00 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:21:00 +0100 Subject: [blml] List moving to a new server Message-ID: <49CBE3AC.1090906@ripe.net> Dear All, Sometime next week (and this is NOT an April 1 joke), the blml at rtflb.org list will be moved to a new server. What will happen is the following: 1. sometime late afternoon on the 31st, I'll make a snapshot of the archives and current subscriber list. The list will continue to work, but messages posted will not end up in the archives and changes of address will not be processed. 2. The new server will come online early April. All addresses currently subscribed will be imported. You should receive a message "Welcome to the BLML mailing list" as soon as the work is completed. 3. The welcome message will contain an address of the web interface and a new password. IF (and only if) you have gone to the current interface to set personal preference, then you will have to go back and do this again. I looked at this, but there is no simple way that I can do this for all subscribers automatically. 4. There may be short service outages on April 1 and mail may get lost. If you want to be absolutely sure that mail arrives, do not send it between March 31, +/- 12:00 UTC and the moment you get the "welcome" message. If you haven't received a welcome message by April 5, please contact me directly (henk at ripe.net). Also feel free to contact me with other questions. 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 ehaa at starpower.net Thu Mar 26 21:24:54 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:24:54 -0400 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2009, at 10:37 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:24:15 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> From: "Harald Skj?ran" >> >>>> The irregularity is a lead out of turn. It does not occur until >>>> there >>>> is >>>> a >>>> lead out of turn. >>>> >>>> (e) the lead is made from the wrong hand. >>>> (f) if the opponents do not accept this lead, >>> >>> Where in the laws do you find anything that allows the opponents to >>> have any say in this matter? >>> (for the time disregarding the fact that you're anyway wrong >>> regarding >>> the timing, re the 2001 minute, see Richard's post). >> >> +=+ Robert could have resolved his own confusion by quoting >> the remainder of the minute. The proposed irregularity "is not >> to be accepted and he rules from that point" etc. >> A statement of claim specifies how the claimer proposes >> to win the tricks claimed. The Director's adjudication determines >> whether the proposed line of play or defence is successful. > > Hi. I am running through my notes, and this is not quite a fair > characterization of the 2001 minute. The minute does NOT say that "the > proposed irregularity is not to be accepted." It says "since the > proposed > irregularity is not to be accepted..." > > Grattan the person's posting makes it sound like the minute is > making new > law: Whatever might be in the lawbook, the WBFLC is stating that the > proposed irregularity is not to be accepted. > > The actual law is written as though it is already in the laws that the > irregularity cannot be accepted. Then, the whole point of the > minute is to > state what happens when an irregularity cannot be followed. And > then the > minute is just clarifying law. Which is what Grattan has claimed. > > The latter interpretation still implies that the WBFLC thought that > all > irregularities were not to be accepted. But maybe they were > focusing on > revokes in particular and did not think about leads out of turn. > (Grattan: > "In fact I am quite sure the intention was/is not to > allow of a revoke, inadvertent or otherwise, in adjudicating a claim." > > For example, if someone says to me "You do not need to bring your > camera, > since Chris will be there to take pictures", that says both that I > don't > need to bring my camera and that Chris won't be there. But if I > later find > out that Chris is sick and won't be there, then I will bring my > camera. > > So that is why it is an issue if the laws actually say that > irregularities > cannot occur in a claim. If so, it might not be, but the laws actually say no such thing. Indeed, neither the word "irregularity" nor any functional equivalent appears anywhere in Chapter VI Part V "Claims and Concessions". There is a lot about "'normal'" play, and it seems reasonable to assume that an irregularity could never qualify as "'normal'", but all that stuff about "'normal'" and such pertains quite specifically only to "unstated line[s] of play" [L70E1] that are "not embraced in the original clarification" [L70D1]. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that irregularities cannot occur in the presumptive play after a claim if they are part of the stated line. And nobody had any reason to think they couldn't until the WBF issued its minute on the subject in 2001. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Fri Mar 27 02:13:20 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:13:20 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <001b01c9adfa$469048e0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: ************************************ 'Double Squeeze': twins embracing. "''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >>+=+ Directors have been assessing 'class of player' at least since >> the words were introduced in the 1987 laws. Players in general >> have always had the judgement to make in choosing some plays. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Alain Gottcheiner: >AG : a last point : a player's ability isn't uniform. > >I'm an expert bidder, a moderate card player and a very poor >analyst. > >Can all this be ascertained by a few questions ? Richard Hills: A simple Google search brings up this enlightening information: "Alain Gottcheiner is a Belgian, occasional TD, has had some successes in national championships, has written about conventions and systems and is known as a 'systems freak'. His main appointments as an AC member are as an expert about strange conventions. His other fields of interest include mathematical anthropology, the sociology of games and 'dolichotrichotomy'." A quarter-century ago my biography would have been very similar. Now if, as Director, I had to make a Law 16 ruling on what Richard's logical alternatives were 25 years ago in the bidding then: (a) if Richard's 25 years ago freaky system required him to launch one and only one strange convention, I would permit Richard to do so under Law 16B1(b) "...using the methods of the partnership...", but (b) if the logical alternatives were instead predicated on non- systemic hand evaluation skills, then I would rule that Richard was 25 years ago not an expert bidder, thus ruling that unsound or ridiculous hand evaluation was 25 years ago a logical alternative for Richard. Nowadays I have learned that The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Conventions, so my Symmetric Relay system (notes emailed on request) has radically pruned gadgets compared to 25 years ago, with most of the few remaining (e.g. fit-showing jumps) designed to complement hand evaluation skills. So nowadays I fairly gain good results due to good methods and good hand evaluation. A quarter-century ago I unfairly gained good results with very unsound methods, merely because those ridiculously unsound methods had the temporary advantage of SURPRISE!!! Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 27 07:21:19 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:21:19 +1100 Subject: [blml] authorized information [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49E5142046004A02A1C9E9ED666C561E@koffiepot> Message-ID: ACBL's NABC tradition is to play matchpoint pairs with 2-board rounds. New Zealand tradition is to play matchpoint pairs with 1-board rounds. Canberra BC tradition is to play imp Swiss teams with 14-board rounds. Martin Phaff: >...Your view to separate AI and UI looks sound, but I am afraid there >is no way to prevent the former declaring side from using the >clarification period to recall their system and subsequently take >advantage of their recalling. Richard Hills: "No way to prevent" a subtle "take advantage" of UI? Yes, way! Last night, at the Canberra BC, this was almost the penultimate 14- board match's 14th board at our table. Dlr: East Richard Hills Vul: Nil K642 QT AQT87 Allan Scerri K7 Susan Scerri A JT87 75432 K9 95 43 AQ952 Rebecca Plush T8643 Q953 AJ86 KJ62 J However, at the CBC we use computer-dealt boards pre-duplicated across the field shared between tables. The previous table (who were not our team-mates) had carelessly flung the board in our general direction, so when Rebecca rose from the table to collect the board she (and only she) noticed an exposed jack of spades in the East slot. Given Rebecca was the only witness to the exposed jack, there was "no way to prevent" her subtle "take advantage"? J'accuse J'ack-use? Yes, way! Rebecca knew the rules (wearing her other hat, she was one of the CBC's regular Directors), so she prevented illegality by voluntarily choosing to obey Law 16C1: "...the Director should be notified forthwith, preferably by the recipient of the information." First the Director investigated whether board 14 had been played at the other table. If not, Law 16C2(a) would permit him to rotate the board 90 degrees. No luck; our team-mates were slow, but not glaciers. The Director, one-time blmler Mark Abraham, then correctly ruled that the information about the jack of spades could interfere with normal* play. A number of plausible auctions could result in Rebecca being the declarer in 4S, when without the UI from the spade jack a normal* line of play for her is to lead the spade deuce to the spade queen, resulting in -50 (or worse, if declarer loses control after club forces). So Mark applied the new 2007 Law 86D: "In team play when the Director awards an adjusted score (excluding any award that ensues from application of Law 6D2), and a result has been obtained between the same contestants at another table, the Director may assign an adjusted score in IMPs or total points (and should do so when that result appears favourable to the non-offending side)." As has been discussed in earlier threads, the concluding bracketed phrase does not apply when both sides are non-offending, so Mark correctly awarded +3 imps to both teams. so my team scored an unusual WBF VP scale win of 19 vps to 13 vps. Best wishes R. J. Hills, Aqua 5, workstation W550 Telephone: 02 6223 8453 Email: richard.hills at immi.gov.au Recruitment Section & DIAC Social Club movie tickets * A blmler has asserted that words must have a consistent meaning throughout the Lawbook. The word "normal" is a counter-example, since its Law 16C2 meaning distinctly differs from its Claim Laws meaning. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Important Notice: If you have received this email by mistake, please advise the sender and delete the message and attachments immediately. This email, including attachments, may contain confidential, sensitive, legally privileged and/or copyright information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. DIAC respects your privacy and has obligations under the Privacy Act 1988. The official departmental privacy policy can be viewed on the department's website at www.immi.gov.au. See: http://www.immi.gov.au/functional/privacy.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------- From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 27 08:20:36 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:20:36 +0100 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: >> >> So that is why it is an issue if the laws actually say that >> irregularities >> cannot occur in a claim. > > If so, it might not be, but the laws actually say no such thing. > Indeed, neither the word "irregularity" nor any functional equivalent > appears anywhere in Chapter VI Part V "Claims and Concessions". > There is a lot about "'normal'" play, and it seems reasonable to > assume that an irregularity could never qualify as "'normal'", but > all that stuff about "'normal'" and such pertains quite specifically > only to "unstated line[s] of play" [L70E1] that are "not embraced in > the original clarification" [L70D1]. There's absolutely nothing to > suggest that irregularities cannot occur in the presumptive play > after a claim if they are part of the stated line. And nobody had > any reason to think they couldn't until the WBF issued its minute on > the subject in 2001. > There is, however, the following: L70E - unstated line of play ... "or unless the failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational". If it is irrational to follow the stated line of play, then claimer is free to follow any other line. This is the basis of the principle that all normal lines are to be looked at after the claim statement "breaks down". The interpretation merely tells us that we have to consider the making of an irregular play as enough for the claim statement to be breaking down. 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 lapinjatka at jldata.fi Fri Mar 27 09:16:23 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:16:23 +0200 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CC8B57.4050705@jldata.fi> richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Gerald Kaufman, How to be a Minister (1980): > > "Cabinet minutes are studied in Government Departments with the > reverence generally reserved for sacred texts, and can be > triumphantly produced to conclusively settle any arguments." > > Robert Frick: > > >> OR THE MINUTE IS ALREADY CORRECT. >> > > Richard Hills: > > On a technical issue of blml Netiquette, when one wishes to emphasise > the importance of particular words, it is correct to write: > > Either > > _Or the minute is already correct._ > > Or > > (*)*Or the minute is already correct.*(*) > > [One pair of asterisks for *correct* minutes, two pairs of asterisks > for **correct** minutes. And, of course, a solitary asterisk for the > Laws 70 and 71 _footnote_ partially defining the word "normal*".] > > In general, on mailing lists, writing in Block Capitals is deprecated > as the written equivalent of Shouting. > > Very true, but in our discussion signal to noise ratio is sometimes so small, that desperate moves is needed to get message through. Best regards Juuso From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Fri Mar 27 09:38:25 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:25 +0200 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CC9081.2030400@jldata.fi> Harald Skj?ran wrote: > 2009/3/25 : > >> In a private email, a blmler asked >> >> "Should I read all of the Lawbook or just the parts that support >> what I want to believe???" >> >> Imps >> Dlr: North >> Vul: Nil >> >> You, North, hold as dealer: >> >> T76 >> 98 >> T83 >> QT932 >> >> What call do you make: >> >> (a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? >> >> or >> >> (b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open >> Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? >> >> > I would pass, regardless of event. > I know some who might preempt. > > I would pass also, even in the third hand. I can't understand random pre-empts. Perhaps some sunny day, in third hand and only non-vul against vul. As non-playing captain I would surely keep pre-emptive opener long time in the team bench. Best regards Juuso >> Best wishes >> >> Richard Hills, >> >> > > > > From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 27 10:46:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:46:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002201c9aec0$f556f380$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] That 2001 minuet [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > There is, however, the following: L70E - unstated line of play ... "or unless the failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational". If it is irrational to follow the stated line of play, then claimer is free to follow any other line. This is the basis of the principle that all normal lines are to be looked at after the claim statement "breaks down". The interpretation merely tells us that we have to consider the making of an irregular play as enough for the claim statement to be breaking down. < +=+ It is certainly the case that the committee agreeing the 2001 minute believed that the claimer's statement of his proposed plays must be confined to lawful plays and avoid irregularities. It may have been based on a belief that to state an intention to play illegally is ruled out by Law 72. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 27 11:38:26 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:38:26 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CCACA2.8000501@ulb.ac.be> richard.hills at immi.gov.au a ?crit : > Alain Gottcheiner: > > >> AG : a last point : a player's ability isn't uniform. >> >> I'm an expert bidder, a moderate card player and a very poor >> analyst. >> >> Can all this be ascertained by a few questions ? >> > > Richard Hills: > > A simple Google search brings up this enlightening information: > > "Alain Gottcheiner is a Belgian, occasional TD, has had some > successes in national championships, has written about conventions > and systems and is known as a 'systems freak'. His main appointments > as an AC member are as an expert about strange conventions. His > other fields of interest include mathematical anthropology, the > sociology of games and 'dolichotrichotomy'." > > Touch?, but ... if ont would begin to use self-devised descriptions to ascertain the level, to be used in AC cases, then we'll see self-inflated descriptions blooming. "See, I'm a great player ; it's even written on the Net" Kind of self-serving (and therefore useless) argument. > A quarter-century ago I unfairly gained good > results with very unsound methods, merely because those ridiculously > unsound methods had the temporary advantage of SURPRISE!!! > Certainly at least partially true (partially, because well-known conventions like Multi and weak NT still gain points from opponents' unpreparedness and their intrinsic preemptive effect decades after their introduction), but then tell me why we aren't allowed to alert doubles and redoubles ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 27 11:44:18 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:44:18 +0100 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49CC9081.2030400@jldata.fi> References: <49CC9081.2030400@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <49CCAE02.9010708@ulb.ac.be> Lapinjatka a ?crit : > Harald Skj?ran wrote: > >> 2009/3/25 : >> >> >>> In a private email, a blmler asked >>> >>> "Should I read all of the Lawbook or just the parts that support >>> what I want to believe???" >>> >>> Imps >>> Dlr: North >>> Vul: Nil >>> >>> You, North, hold as dealer: >>> >>> T76 >>> 98 >>> T83 >>> QT932 >>> >>> What call do you make: >>> >>> (a) if the event is a Swiss Butler (datum-scoring) Pairs??? >>> >>> or >>> >>> (b) if the event is the Grand Final of the Australian Open >>> Interstate Teams (teams-of-six plus non-playing captains)??? >>> >>> >>> >> I would pass, regardless of event. >> I know some who might preempt. >> >> >> > I would pass also, even in the third hand. I can't understand random > pre-empts. Perhaps some sunny day, in third hand and only non-vul > against vul. > Doing something 3rd-in-hand and NV, could tickle my fancy. Perhaps 3C, perhaps a weak NT (passing partner's 2C), perhaps an outright psyche (2S ?). And surely a natural (Precision) 2C if I happened to play it. But answering those questions is a difficult task, because the efficiency of such shenanigans lie in not doing twice the same thing. Notice that the hand meets the criterion given, 40 years ago, by Roger Silberwasser, Belgium's best player ever : "strive to bid your suit when you're ready to demand a lead from Qx or Jx". Best regards Alain From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Fri Mar 27 12:48:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:48:28 -0000 Subject: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: <49CC9081.2030400@jldata.fi> Message-ID: <000201c9aed2$6411e7b0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 8:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Q & A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Harald Skj?ran wrote: >> 2009/3/25 : >> In a private email, a blmler asked > "Should I read all of the Lawbook or just the parts that support what I want to believe???" > +=+ I searched hard for an apt quotation. The one above is in the 'Treasury of British Eloquence' - my copy was published in 1877. +=+ From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 27 15:09:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:09:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: KQJ9x 10xxxx --- Axx Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? Presumably director follows the stated claim until.... Until what? I was thinking until a card that was proposed as being played could not be played -- claimer did not win a trick he intended to win, claimer specified the play of an illegal card, etc. Herman (offlist) suggested that the claim statement is followed until "it breaks down". Breaking down is when any event occurs after the claim causing the claimer to notice that his claim was wrong, or put another, learning something that makes the claiming plan irrational. So Herman would allow the finesse of the 9. A third possibility is that the director simply does not allow irrational claiming statements: AKJ10xxxx xxx Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim even though the singleton queen is offside? From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 27 14:37:38 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:37:38 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the > King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? Yes. Normally the claim statement controls, but L70E1 makes a specific exception for this case, where E will show out before declarer leads towards dummy. > Presumably director follows the stated claim until.... Until what? Until either it becomes impossible to follow it further due to something the claimer didn't anticipate, or until the claimer is allowed to deviate from the stated line by virtue of the conditions in L70E1 having been met. > I was thinking until a card that was proposed as being played could > not be > played -- claimer did not win a trick he intended to win, claimer > specified the play of an illegal card, etc. > > Herman (offlist) suggested that the claim statement is followed > until "it > breaks down". Breaking down is when any event occurs after the claim > causing the claimer to notice that his claim was wrong, or put > another, > learning something that makes the claiming plan irrational. So Herman > would allow the finesse of the 9. > > A third possibility is that the director simply does not allow > irrational > claiming statements: There is no legal justification for this. The word "irrational" appears in Ch VI Pt V only once, in L70E1. If you diagram the single sentence of that law, you will discover that in "failure to adopt that line of play" the referent of "that" is "any unstated line of play". > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? Yes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From blml at bridgescore.de Fri Mar 27 14:39:46 2009 From: blml at bridgescore.de (Christian Farwig (BLML)) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:39:46 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CCD722.2030209@bridgescore.de> Hi Robert, the basic difference between the two settings is that in the first case, declarers erroneous assumptions become obvioulsy invalid by new facts: > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? Once East blinks out, declarer will realize that he was in error and he will change his game plan. A non-finesse would become irrational and the finesse is to be allowed. > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? In this case, declarer has miscounted his cards. When leading small from the hand, West will play a small card and declarers view of the world (twisted as it may be) does not change - he has no reason to modify his original way of playing. Regards, Christian From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Mar 27 14:54:30 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:54:30 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CCDA96.4060205@ulb.ac.be> Robert Frick a ?crit : > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? > > Presumably director follows the stated claim until.... Until what? > Until the limits given by L70E, dash 2 are met, i.e. on the line given, the void shows up. At this time, it is obvious to change the line of play. > > A third possibility is that the director simply does not allow irrational > claiming statements: > > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? > AG : I do. The proviso in L70E, dash 3 applies only to unspecified lines. Specified lines are to be followed, even if irrational. Only lines that become irrational may be changed. Best regards Alain From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Mar 27 14:56:55 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:56:55 -0300 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes I grant the claim. We can safely and reasonably assume that declarer will know how to handle the unexpected 5-0 break when he cashes the Ace. Jack On 3/27/09 11:09 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? > > Presumably director follows the stated claim until.... Until what? > > I was thinking until a card that was proposed as being played could not be > played -- claimer did not win a trick he intended to win, claimer > specified the play of an illegal card, etc. > > Herman (offlist) suggested that the claim statement is followed until "it > breaks down". Breaking down is when any event occurs after the claim > causing the claimer to notice that his claim was wrong, or put another, > learning something that makes the claiming plan irrational. So Herman > would allow the finesse of the 9. > > A third possibility is that the director simply does not allow irrational > claiming statements: > > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From jrhind at therock.bm Fri Mar 27 14:59:41 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:59:41 -0300 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sorry I read too fast and not enough! In the second example declarer does not receive any additional news from the play of the first trick and therefore will be granted his wish to finesse and lose a trick unnecessarily. Jack On 3/27/09 11:09 AM, "Robert Frick" wrote: > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? > > Presumably director follows the stated claim until.... Until what? > > I was thinking until a card that was proposed as being played could not be > played -- claimer did not win a trick he intended to win, claimer > specified the play of an illegal card, etc. > > Herman (offlist) suggested that the claim statement is followed until "it > breaks down". Breaking down is when any event occurs after the claim > causing the claimer to notice that his claim was wrong, or put another, > learning something that makes the claiming plan irrational. So Herman > would allow the finesse of the 9. > > A third possibility is that the director simply does not allow irrational > claiming statements: > > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Fri Mar 27 17:27:06 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:27:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000601c9aef8$dec4c650$9c4e52f0$@no> I was just about to post my comment when I read this; and I fully agree with Jack. To me "Finessing for the queen" means finessing immediately without first playing a high card to test for a singleton Queen. (We don't even know if declarer has any entry back to his own hand for finesse in the next trick after playing to the Ace.) Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: Jack Rhind > Sorry I read too fast and not enough! > > In the second example declarer does not receive any additional news from the > play of the first trick and therefore will be granted his wish to finesse > and lose a trick unnecessarily. > > Jack ................... > > AKJ10xxxx > > > > xxx > > > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > > even though the singleton queen is offside? From Hermandw at skynet.be Fri Mar 27 19:27:51 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:27:51 +0100 Subject: [blml] [offlist] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> Robert wrote me this in private, but I think the answer will be of interest to all. Besides, read the first line, so I think I'm allowed this small breach of netiquette: Robert Frick wrote: > I posted this basic question to blml. >> >> Yes I do, since I maintain that when a line becomes irrational, > > What if it starts out irrational? > It cannot. Not if you read the word irrational in the way I intended it - within the framework of the claimer. Finessing for the bare queen, as in your example on blml is irrational, but not for the player who thinks (whatever it is he thinks). Every claim statement must be considered rational within the claimer's frame of mind, at the moment he utters it. The claim statement can only "become" irrational when something happens to change that frame of mind. This can be something very small, like claimer having a (first) look at the actual lay-out. "what am I sayin? of course I play the ace first". The question is then what happened to make the claimer notice that his statement has become irrational, and if it is something normal, TD may allow the change. OK, Robert? From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 27 22:16:54 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:16:54 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Everyone on blml agreed, and furthermore they all agreed with Herman! I don't know whether to buy a lottery ticket or look for the third sign that the world is ending. The stated claim must be followed until _______ a. something drastic happens (a blmler, informal, offlist) b. the point at which claimer realizes that his claim will not yield what he thought it would (Herman, informal, offlist). c. when the claim becomes irrational (Herman, informal, offlist). d. Some unexpected event makes the claim irrational (plausible). Declarer claims, stating that he will play his AK of spades, then ruff a spade in dummy, then his hand is good. One opponent demures, pointing out that there are three spades in dummy. Dummy's spades were not arranged properly, and declarer thought there were only two. Declarer would have seen the third spade after the first two were played. Since the whole goal is to avoid losing a trick, playing a losing spade from both hands is the worst possible strategy. When is this claim abandoned as irrational? a. When the opponent points out the third spade. b. After playing the A and K, which is when declarer would have discovered that there was a third spade. c. The claiming line must be followed and a small spade is played from both hands. On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:09:13 -0500, Robert Frick wrote: > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? > > Presumably director follows the stated claim until.... Until what? > > I was thinking until a card that was proposed as being played could not > be > played -- claimer did not win a trick he intended to win, claimer > specified the play of an illegal card, etc. > > Herman (offlist) suggested that the claim statement is followed until "it > breaks down". Breaking down is when any event occurs after the claim > causing the claimer to notice that his claim was wrong, or put another, > learning something that makes the claiming plan irrational. So Herman > would allow the finesse of the 9. > > A third possibility is that the director simply does not allow irrational > claiming statements: > > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Fri Mar 27 22:24:00 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:24:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:27:51 -0500, Herman De Wael wrote: > Robert wrote me this in private, but I think the answer will be of > interest to all. Besides, read the first line, so I think I'm allowed > this small breach of netiquette: > > Robert Frick wrote: >> I posted this basic question to blml. >>> >>> Yes I do, since I maintain that when a line becomes irrational, >> What if it starts out irrational? >> > > It cannot. > Not if you read the word irrational in the way I intended it - within > the framework of the claimer. Finessing for the bare queen, as in your > example on blml is irrational, but not for the player who thinks > (whatever it is he thinks). > Every claim statement must be considered rational within the claimer's > frame of mind, at the moment he utters it. > The claim statement can only "become" irrational when something happens > to change that frame of mind. This can be something very small, like > claimer having a (first) look at the actual lay-out. "what am I sayin? > of course I play the ace first". The question is then what happened to > make the claimer notice that his statement has become irrational, and if > it is something normal, TD may allow the change. > > OK, Robert? > > The idea that all thought is rational is intriguing. Ironically, in my example of finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit, declarer was logically following the rule "eight ever, nine never" (the minor premise being that there was an 8-card suit in dummy). But that idea doesn't fit the traditional view of mental illness or I suspect Richard's opinion of some of my postings. I think irrational has to be evaluated from the outside -- it's the line of play that is irrational (or not normal), not some person's thinking. I think blmlers allowed finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit because, even though it seemed irrational, nothing had occurred to warrant changing the claim statement. And I think most blmlers will not allow an "aha" moment to be enough to change a claim statement, if that is what you are proposing. From ehaa at starpower.net Fri Mar 27 21:33:13 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:33:13 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 27, 2009, at 5:16 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > Everyone on blml agreed, and furthermore they all agreed with > Herman! I > don't know whether to buy a lottery ticket or look for the third > sign that > the world is ending. > > The stated claim must be followed until _______ > > a. something drastic happens (a blmler, informal, offlist) > b. the point at which claimer realizes that his claim will not > yield what > he thought it would (Herman, informal, offlist). > c. when the claim becomes irrational (Herman, informal, offlist). > d. Some unexpected event makes the claim irrational (plausible). > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play his AK of spades, then > ruff a > spade in dummy, then his hand is good. One opponent demures, > pointing out > that there are three spades in dummy. Dummy's spades were not arranged > properly, and declarer thought there were only two. Declarer would > have > seen the third spade after the first two were played. > > Since the whole goal is to avoid losing a trick, playing a losing > spade > from both hands is the worst possible strategy. When is this claim > abandoned as irrational? > > a. When the opponent points out the third spade. > b. After playing the A and K, which is when declarer would have > discovered > that there was a third spade. > c. The claiming line must be followed and a small spade is played from > both hands. b. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Sat Mar 28 02:39:50 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:39:50 -0000 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred><49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001901c9af46$18cd77a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml >> Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:24 PM Subject: Re: [blml] irrational stated lines of play > > > I think irrational has to be evaluated from the outside -- it's the line > of play that is irrational (or not normal), not some person's thinking. I > think blmlers allowed finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit because, > even though it seemed irrational, nothing had occurred to warrant changing > the claim statement. And I think most blmlers will not allow an "aha" > moment to be enough to change a claim statement, if that is what you are > proposing. > +=+ When a player proposes a legal play of the cards in a claim statement the law does not object on the grounds that it is irrational. There is no irregularity in such a play. Laws 70B, C, D, E, do refer to situations in which the Director will not accept a proposal from the claimer but mere questions of rationality are not a factor. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Sat Mar 28 12:04:01 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:04:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49CE0421.7000303@skynet.be> Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:27:51 -0500, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >> Robert wrote me this in private, but I think the answer will be of >> interest to all. Besides, read the first line, so I think I'm allowed >> this small breach of netiquette: >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> I posted this basic question to blml. >>>> >>>> Yes I do, since I maintain that when a line becomes irrational, >>> What if it starts out irrational? >>> >> >> It cannot. >> Not if you read the word irrational in the way I intended it - within >> the framework of the claimer. Finessing for the bare queen, as in your >> example on blml is irrational, but not for the player who thinks >> (whatever it is he thinks). >> Every claim statement must be considered rational within the claimer's >> frame of mind, at the moment he utters it. >> The claim statement can only "become" irrational when something >> happens to change that frame of mind. This can be something very >> small, like claimer having a (first) look at the actual lay-out. "what >> am I sayin? of course I play the ace first". The question is then what >> happened to make the claimer notice that his statement has become >> irrational, and if it is something normal, TD may allow the change. >> >> OK, Robert? >> >> > > The idea that all thought is rational is intriguing. By the very etymology of the word rational, this is true. > Ironically, in my > example of finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit, declarer was > logically following the rule "eight ever, nine never" (the minor premise > being that there was an 8-card suit in dummy). But that idea doesn't fit > the traditional view of mental illness or I suspect Richard's opinion of > some of my postings. > And so his reasoning was rational. And therefore, normal. > I think irrational has to be evaluated from the outside -- it's the line > of play that is irrational (or not normal), not some person's thinking. No, since the word rational implicates that someone does the thinking, a line can only be said to be rational within the framework of someone doing the thinking. A line that is irrational "from the outside", such as finessing to a bare queen, becomes rational in the mind of the guy who thinks "eight never". And is therefore "normal", for him. > I think blmlers allowed finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit > because, even though it seemed irrational, nothing had occurred to > warrant changing the claim statement. And I think most blmlers will not > allow an "aha" moment to be enough to change a claim statement, if that > is what you are proposing. > That is not the problem. By saying that he'll finesse, the claimer has shown that in his mind, finessing is rational and normal. And indeed, nothing has happened to make him change his view of the hand. > > From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Mar 28 16:24:45 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:24:45 -0500 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: <001901c9af46$18cd77a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> <001901c9af46$18cd77a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:39:50 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " We should easily convert even the Turks > to the obedience of our gospel, if only we > would agree among ourselves and unite in > some holy confederacy." > [Thomas Cranmer 1489-1556] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Frick" > To: "Herman De Wael" ; "blml >> Bridge Laws Mailing > List" > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 9:24 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] irrational stated lines of play > > >> >> >> I think irrational has to be evaluated from the outside -- it's the line >> of play that is irrational (or not normal), not some person's thinking. >> I >> think blmlers allowed finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit because, >> even though it seemed irrational, nothing had occurred to warrant >> changing >> the claim statement. And I think most blmlers will not allow an "aha" >> moment to be enough to change a claim statement, if that is what you are >> proposing. >> > +=+ When a player proposes a legal play of the cards in a claim > statement the law does not object on the grounds that it is irrational. > There is no irregularity in such a play. The claiming statement (clarification statement) is irregular when it is not clear (L68C). I can't find any other lawly objections to claiming statements themselves. > Laws 70B, C, D, E, do refer > to situations in which the Director will not accept a proposal from > the claimer A clear claiming statement is followed until _______. (The laws don't say.) L70C is never applied while the claiming statement can be followed. L70D1 and L70E apparently are applied while the claiming statement can still be followed. But only to the give the claimer more tricks that he would have received by following the claiming statment. > but mere questions of rationality are not a factor. I think everyone is interpreting irrational plays as not "normal". Bob From Gampas at aol.com Sun Mar 29 11:00:29 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 05:00:29 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 27/03/2009 14:40:49 GMT Standard Time, blml at bridgescore.de writes: the basic difference between the two settings is that in the first case, declarers erroneous assumptions become obvioulsy invalid by new facts: > KQJ9x > > 10xxxx --- > > Axx > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? Once East blinks out, declarer will realize that he was in error and he will change his game plan. A non-finesse would become irrational and the finesse is to be allowed. > AKJ10xxxx > > xxx > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > even though the singleton queen is offside? In this case, declarer has miscounted his cards. When leading small from the hand, West will play a small card and declarers view of the world (twisted as it may be) does not change - he has no reason to modify his original way of playing. Regards, Christian [paul lamford] I see nothing in the Laws that justifies this interpretation; either it is irrational to play low to the jack in the second case or it is not. In the first case, declarer's stated line is that he will play the ace of clubs and low to the king, implying that he will not bother to look at which cards the opponents play, as he *knows* that no bad break will matter; however 70E1 allows him to notice the discard and take appropriate action. In the second case, the declarer either thinks he has two or three fewer cards in the suit, or that queens rank above kings, or whatever went through his tiny mind at the time. No matter. He is protected from his idiocy by 70E, in that playing the ace and king does not require a particular opponent to hold the queen of clubs, and failure to adopt the line would be irrational. Now you could argue that it would not be irrational for him at that time. I think it would; he was about to adopt an irrational line, and the Laws stop him from doing so. Nothing in the Laws stops an irrational line from being the one he would have adopted - I do it all the time. At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in South: North S AK H 32 D none C none South S QJ H none D KQ C none The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it could be reasonably assumed that South knew this (if it not distorting the definition of knowledge to ascribe any to this particular South). South was on lead, and mistakenly thought spades were trumps, while the contract was actually no-trumps. He claimed on a high-cross ruff. It was ruled that it would be irrational for this particular South not to win both diamonds and then both spades, rather than attempt to ruff his king of diamonds with the king of spades, and then play a spade to the ace. If play had proceeded, he might well have said "ruff" or "king of spades" at trick one. South would then have been on lead, and we have to decide whether it would now be irrational for him not to discard his top spade on the other top diamond, continuing on his mistaken "high cross-ruff" idea. (Hey, I have just learnt this game; how I am supposed to remember that the person who won the last trick leads to the next). And, friends, this story is true; I know because I was that soldier. The overriding factor which seems to be to be frequently ignored in the assessments of claims is that it does not matter one iota what this particular player was likely to do, nor what was in his mind at the time. If that action or intention was irrational, he is protected from himself and the least favourable rational action is substituted. 69B2 allows redress for the player who "has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued", but the converse does not apply. The non-claimers have no rights to tricks that their side would likely have won had the play continued if the only reason that they were likely to win them was because the declarer was likely to adopt an irrational line. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 29 11:40:35 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 11:40:35 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CF4213.7040409@skynet.be> Paul, you are completely and utterly wrong. Gampas at aol.com wrote: > > [paul lamford] I see nothing in the Laws that justifies this interpretation; > either it is irrational to play low to the jack in the second case or it is > not. In the first case, declarer's stated line is that he will play the ace > of clubs and low to the king, implying that he will not bother to look at > which cards the opponents play, as he *knows* that no bad break will matter; > however 70E1 allows him to notice the discard and take appropriate action. Your point about not bothering to look at the cards is well made, and yes, claim law says claimers will always look at the cards, and draw the appropriate conclusions. > In the > second case, the declarer either thinks he has two or three fewer cards in > the suit, or that queens rank above kings, or whatever went through his tiny > mind at the time. No matter. Indeed, no matter. But we must assume that something went through his mind. > He is protected from his idiocy by 70E, in that > playing the ace and king does not require a particular opponent to hold the > queen of clubs, and failure to adopt the line would be irrational. And this is where you are going wrong. The line is irrational, from the outside, yes, but the line is not irrational for this claimer, in this frame of mind. > Now you could > argue that it would not be irrational for him at that time. I think it > would; he was about to adopt an irrational line, and the Laws stop him from doing > so. Nothing in the Laws stops an irrational line from being the one he would > have adopted - I do it all the time. > Yes, you do - but you do in one of two ways. Sometimes you are do off the planet, that you throw kings under aces. That is irrational, yet you do it. But sometimes your irrational line is no more than ruffing your own winner when you did not remember the card was high. That is "irrational" from the outside, but completely rational within your mindset. You do not know a card is high, so you ruff it. Completely rational. Now within claims, the first kind of irrational action is prevented, but the second kind IS NOT. And you need to make that distinction before you can rule correctly. > At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in South: > > North > S AK > H 32 > D none > C none > > South > S QJ > H none > D KQ > C none > > The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it could > be reasonably assumed that South knew this (if it not distorting the > definition of knowledge to ascribe any to this particular South). South was on lead, > and mistakenly thought spades were trumps, while the contract was actually > no-trumps. He claimed on a high-cross ruff. It was ruled that it would be > irrational for this particular South not to win both diamonds and then both > spades, rather than attempt to ruff his king of diamonds with the king of spades, > and then play a spade to the ace. If play had proceeded, he might well have > said "ruff" or "king of spades" at trick one. If he was in lead from South, the only rational line, given his claim statement, is to ruff a diamond. That is what we'll do. And inddeed: > South would then have been on > lead, and we have to decide whether it would now be irrational for him not to > discard his top spade on the other top diamond, continuing on his mistaken "high > cross-ruff" idea. (Hey, I have just learnt this game; how I am supposed to > remember that the person who won the last trick leads to the next). > That's not probable. Claimer will attempt to ruff a heart, but he will be prevented from doing this (both by the minute and by my principles). He will now be restored to the real situation of playing no-trump. Depending on his level, the discarding of the SK on the other diamond may well be deemed the only rational action next. > And, friends, this story is true; I know because I was that soldier. > > The overriding factor which seems to be to be frequently ignored in the > assessments of claims is that it does not matter one iota what this particular > player was likely to do, nor what was in his mind at the time. If that action or > intention was irrational, he is protected from himself and the least > favourable rational action is substituted. And this "overriding factor" is correctly ignored, because it is simply not true. We need to know what a player thinks the situation is in order for us to determine what, for him, are the normal lines, and what is irrational (for him). > 69B2 allows redress for the player who > "has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the > play continued", but the converse does not apply. The non-claimers have no > rights to tricks that their side would likely have won had the play continued > if the only reason that they were likely to win them was because the declarer > was likely to adopt an irrational line. > Claimers can never adopt irrational lines. They can adopt lines which, to them, are rational - even when they seem irrational from the outside. Herman. From Gampas at aol.com Sun Mar 29 12:04:21 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:04:21 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 29/03/2009 10:40:04 GMT Standard Time, Hermandw at skynet.be writes: Now within claims, the first kind of irrational action is prevented, but the second kind IS NOT [paul lamford] Can you point to the Law which says that some irrational actions are not prevented? What you are saying, I think, it that the benchmark for rationality is lower than I have set. There are slightly different meanings of rational in various dictionaries, from "of sound mind, sane" to "reasonable or sensible". It is the irrationality of the action that is being judged, not the irrationality of the player. Once we have decided what that benchmark is, we are obliged to follow it. If the TD (and AC) think it is rational to finesse a queen when holding 11 cards in a suit, then that is indeed imposed on the player. If they decide it is not, that part of the statement is discounted. Let us say that you have this hand: AKQJx Ax AKQ AKQ opposite xxxx x xxxx xxxx and declarer is in Seven Spades. He claims on the heart lead, stating "drawing trumps in four rounds if necessary." Trumps are 4-0, yet I would regard it as irrational not to ruff a heart somewhere along the way, even for near beginners; I regard the wording of the statement as careless, not the likely play. So I would discount the exact wording of the claimant's statement as being irrational, even for a player of that mindset at the time, who had not considered fully the implications of trumps being 4-0. But others might disagree; in each case there is a value judgement of what is rational and what is not. From svenpran at online.no Sun Mar 29 12:28:11 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:28:11 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000001c9b059$1001ef70$3005ce50$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > the basic difference between the two settings is that in the first case, > declarers erroneous assumptions become obvioulsy invalid by new facts: > > > KQJ9x > > > > 10xxxx --- > > > > Axx > > > > Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, > > and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? > > Once East blinks out, declarer will realize that he was in error and he > will change his game plan. A non-finesse would become irrational and the > finesse is to be allowed. > > > AKJ10xxxx > > > > xxx > > > > Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim > > even though the singleton queen is offside? > > In this case, declarer has miscounted his cards. When leading small from > the hand, West will play a small card and declarers view of the world > (twisted as it may be) does not change - he has no reason to modify his > original way of playing. > > > Regards, > > Christian > > > [paul lamford] I see nothing in the Laws that justifies this interpretation; > either it is irrational to play low to the jack in the second case or it is > not. In the first case, declarer's stated line is that he will play the ace > of clubs and low to the king, implying that he will not bother to look at > which cards the opponents play, as he *knows* that no bad break will matter; > however 70E1 allows him to notice the discard and take appropriate action. The first case can be questionable, but I have the feeling that declarer having noticed East showing out on the first trick will cover the card played by West as low as possible simply by nature. He has no reason to recalculate the clubs but will simply have the rest by instinct. (And luck!) > In the > second case, the declarer either thinks he has two or three fewer cards in > the suit, or that queens rank above kings, or whatever went through his tiny > mind at the time. No matter. He is protected from his idiocy by 70E, in that > playing the ace and king does not require a particular opponent to hold the > queen of clubs, and failure to adopt the line would be irrational. Now you could > argue that it would not be irrational for him at that time. I think it > would; he was about to adopt an irrational line, and the Laws stop him from doing > so. Nothing in the Laws stops an irrational line from being the one he would > have adopted - I do it all the time. In the second case he has stated that he will finesse the queen and he has no reason to change this plan at the critical moment so he shall lose to the stiff queen offside. > > At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in South: > > North > S AK > H 32 > D none > C none > > South > S QJ > H none > D KQ > C none > > The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it could > be reasonably assumed that South knew this (if it not distorting the > definition of knowledge to ascribe any to this particular South). South was on > lead, > and mistakenly thought spades were trumps, while the contract was actually > no-trumps. He claimed on a high-cross ruff. It was ruled that it would be > irrational for this particular South not to win both diamonds and then both > spades, rather than attempt to ruff his king of diamonds with the king of spades, > and then play a spade to the ace. If play had proceeded, he might well have > said "ruff" or "king of spades" at trick one. South would then have been on > lead, and we have to decide whether it would now be irrational for him not to > discard his top spade on the other top diamond, continuing on his mistaken "high > cross-ruff" idea. (Hey, I have just learnt this game; how I am supposed to > remember that the person who won the last trick leads to the next). > > And, friends, this story is true; I know because I was that soldier. I have already seen this case on IBLF where the ruling (without comments) was "four tricks to declarer". (There it was stated that declarer had forgotten the Ace of Diamonds, believing that it was still out.) My ruling here is that declarer will play a diamond and discard (!) a spade. When realizing that he is playing in NT and not in spades, and that the Diamond King was a winner, the only "normal" line of play now is to play his other diamond and discard the other spade from dummy after which his hand is good. I agree with the ruling. Regards Sven From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 29 12:33:45 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:33:45 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CF4E89.3010106@skynet.be> Hello Paul, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 29/03/2009 10:40:04 GMT Standard Time, Hermandw at skynet.be > writes: > > Now within claims, the first kind of irrational action is prevented, but > the second kind IS NOT > > [paul lamford] Can you point to the Law which says that some irrational > actions are not prevented? No I cannot, because the claim laws are very poorly worded. However, if we do not judge normalcy and irrationality from within the claimer's mindset, I do not see how we can rule anything. > What you are saying, I think, it that the benchmark > for rationality is lower than I have set. No, that is certainly not what I am saying. There can be discussions as to what constitutes rational and irrational actions, but what I am saying is that you ahve to judge those within the mindset of the claimer. > There are slightly different meanings > of rational in various dictionaries, from "of sound mind, sane" to > "reasonable or sensible". It is the irrationality of the action that is being judged, > not the irrationality of the player. > No, it is the rationality of certain lines within the frame of mind of the claimer. > Once we have decided what that benchmark is, we are obliged to follow it. If > the TD (and AC) think it is rational to finesse a queen when holding 11 cards > in a suit, then that is indeed imposed on the player. If they decide it is > not, that part of the statement is discounted. Let us say that you have this > hand: > > AKQJx Ax AKQ AKQ opposite xxxx x xxxx xxxx and declarer is in Seven Spades. > > He claims on the heart lead, stating "drawing trumps in four rounds if > necessary." Trumps are 4-0, yet I would regard it as irrational not to ruff a > heart somewhere along the way, even for near beginners; I regard the wording of > the statement as careless, not the likely play. So I would discount the exact > wording of the claimant's statement as being irrational, even for a player of > that mindset at the time, who had not considered fully the implications of > trumps being 4-0. But others might disagree; in each case there is a value > judgement of what is rational and what is not. > This is indeed a valid question, but it does not help us in the discussion at hand. In this claim, the only thing missing in the mindset of claimer is the realisation of what might happen if trumps happen to be 4-0. I have no doubt that we can agree on the mindset of this claimer, but as to the likelihood of him finding the correct continuation, we need more information about his abilities. Herman. From Gampas at aol.com Sun Mar 29 12:38:34 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:38:34 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 29/03/2009 10:40:04 GMT Standard Time, Hermandw at skynet.be writes: Claimers can never adopt irrational lines. They can adopt lines which, to them, are rational - even when they seem irrational from the outside. [paul lamford] The old Laws had something along the lines of "in accordance with his claim". Those with older versions of the Laws will know when the changes were made. I recall a Hog story where he made 3NT as dummy by forcing the Rabbit to play in strict accordance with his claim; of course we know dummy should not be chipping in, but the Secretary Bird was a fair target. But these have been changed, and I cannot see where in the Laws is there an exemption from the rationality test for the claimant's statement. Maybe there should be; something along the lines of "the line stated by the claimant is always assumed to be rational". Fine if that were there, or maybe I am missing something. From Hermandw at skynet.be Sun Mar 29 15:13:50 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:13:50 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CF740E.9060302@skynet.be> Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 29/03/2009 10:40:04 GMT Standard Time, Hermandw at skynet.be > writes: > > Claimers can never adopt irrational lines. They can adopt lines which, > to them, are rational - even when they seem irrational from the outside. > > [paul lamford] The old Laws had something along the lines of "in accordance > with his claim". Those with older versions of the Laws will know when the > changes were made. I recall a Hog story where he made 3NT as dummy by forcing > the Rabbit to play in strict accordance with his claim; of course we know dummy > should not be chipping in, but the Secretary Bird was a fair target. But > these have been changed, and I cannot see where in the Laws is there an > exemption from the rationality test for the claimant's statement. Maybe there should > be; something along the lines of "the line stated by the claimant is always > assumed to be rational". Fine if that were there, or maybe I am missing > something. > I have no problem with such a principle. It corresponds to my notion that normalcy must be judged within the mindset of the claimer. The only problem I have with your wording is that it does not help us in the cases where claimer did not issue a claim statement. Example: Claimer just shows his cards, which are all high, except one. In your "principle", we must first impose a claim statement on claimer before we can judge the normalcy. In my "principle" the mormalcy just depends from the mindset, which we deduce from his actions: just showing your cards is analogous to believing they are all high. Herman. From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Mar 29 16:01:36 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:01:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> I disagree. (Agree with Christian and disagree with the rulingn at your club.) JE Gampas at aol.com schrieb: > In a message dated 27/03/2009 14:40:49 GMT Standard Time, > blml at bridgescore.de writes: > > the basic difference between the two settings is that in the first case, > declarers erroneous assumptions become obvioulsy invalid by new facts: > >> KQJ9x >> >> 10xxxx --- >> >> Axx >> >> Declarer claims, stating that he will play A of clubs, club to the King, >> and the board is good. Do you grant the claim? > > Once East blinks out, declarer will realize that he was in error and he > will change his game plan. A non-finesse would become irrational and the > finesse is to be allowed. > >> AKJ10xxxx >> >> xxx >> >> Claiming statment: "Finessing for the queen". Do you accept this claim >> even though the singleton queen is offside? > > In this case, declarer has miscounted his cards. When leading small from > the hand, West will play a small card and declarers view of the world > (twisted as it may be) does not change - he has no reason to modify his > original way of playing. > > > Regards, > > Christian > > > [paul lamford] I see nothing in the Laws that justifies this interpretation; > either it is irrational to play low to the jack in the second case or it is > not. In the first case, declarer's stated line is that he will play the ace > of clubs and low to the king, implying that he will not bother to look at > which cards the opponents play, as he *knows* that no bad break will matter; > however 70E1 allows him to notice the discard and take appropriate action. In the > second case, the declarer either thinks he has two or three fewer cards in > the suit, or that queens rank above kings, or whatever went through his tiny > mind at the time. No matter. He is protected from his idiocy by 70E, in that > playing the ace and king does not require a particular opponent to hold the > queen of clubs, and failure to adopt the line would be irrational. Now you could > argue that it would not be irrational for him at that time. I think it > would; he was about to adopt an irrational line, and the Laws stop him from doing > so. Nothing in the Laws stops an irrational line from being the one he would > have adopted - I do it all the time. > > At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in South: > > North > S AK > H 32 > D none > C none > > South > S QJ > H none > D KQ > C none > > The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it could > be reasonably assumed that South knew this (if it not distorting the > definition of knowledge to ascribe any to this particular South). South was on lead, > and mistakenly thought spades were trumps, while the contract was actually > no-trumps. He claimed on a high-cross ruff. It was ruled that it would be > irrational for this particular South not to win both diamonds and then both > spades, rather than attempt to ruff his king of diamonds with the king of spades, > and then play a spade to the ace. If play had proceeded, he might well have > said "ruff" or "king of spades" at trick one. South would then have been on > lead, and we have to decide whether it would now be irrational for him not to > discard his top spade on the other top diamond, continuing on his mistaken "high > cross-ruff" idea. (Hey, I have just learnt this game; how I am supposed to > remember that the person who won the last trick leads to the next). > > And, friends, this story is true; I know because I was that soldier. > > The overriding factor which seems to be to be frequently ignored in the > assessments of claims is that it does not matter one iota what this particular > player was likely to do, nor what was in his mind at the time. If that action or > intention was irrational, he is protected from himself and the least > favourable rational action is substituted. 69B2 allows redress for the player who > "has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the > play continued", but the converse does not apply. The non-claimers have no > rights to tricks that their side would likely have won had the play continued > if the only reason that they were likely to win them was because the declarer > was likely to adopt an irrational line. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 30 09:20:59 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:20:59 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49CCACA2.8000501@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Reuters: Leonard Nimoy, the actor who played Mr Spock in the 1960s TV series Star Trek, is backing a plea by a small Alberta town to host the premiere of the latest Star Trek film. Vulcan, Alberta, a town of 2,000, has based a lucrative Star Trek tourist trade on its name, which it shares with the fictional planet that Spock calls home in the TV science-fiction series. The latest movie in the long-running franchise set to hit theatres in May. The town appealed to Paramount Pictures to let it host the premiere, but was turned down by the studio. The town has since begun an internet campaign, which has caught Nimoy's attention, according to the Calgary Herald. The actor reportedly called the newspaper to say he considered Paramount's decision "very sad" and told Vulcan tourism officials he would try to sort it out. "I seriously thought it was a prank call," said Dayna Dickens, Vulcan's tourism coordinator. "He said he was disappointed we didn't get it and mentioned he is going to see what he can do to help us out." Ms Dickens said she contacted Nimoy's agents to confirm it was actually the actor who called her. Ms Dickens said Paramount has offered to hold a special screening of the film, which is called simply Star Trek, in Calgary for Vulcan's residents, but cannot stage the premiere in the town because it doesn't have a movie theatre. Alain Gottcheiner: >...use self-devised descriptions to ascertain the level, to be used in >AC cases, then we'll see self-inflated descriptions blooming. "See, >I'm a great player ; it's even written on the Net" >Kind of self-serving (and therefore useless) argument. Richard Hills, self-devised description "brain the size of a planet": Not the point I was trying to make. It is not what facts a player asserts, but how she asserts them, which determine her class of player. For example, in a famous international disciplinary case of a few years ago, a world-class expert asserted, "diamonds were breaking badly in this tournament". That and similar assertions of fact were deemed to be self-incriminating (since weatherman and bridge experts, unlike stock market analysts, make probabilistic predictions which actually correspond to reality; if a weatherman predicts a 10% chance of rain, then it will rain 10% of the time; if a bridge expert predicts a 66% chance of success with a restricted choice finesse, then that restricted choice finesse will succeed 66% of the time). >>A quarter-century ago I unfairly gained good results with very >>unsound methods, merely because those ridiculously unsound methods >>had the temporary advantage of SURPRISE!!! Alain Gottcheiner: >Certainly at least partially true (partially, because well-known >conventions like Multi and weak NT still gain points from opponents' >unpreparedness and their intrinsic preemptive effect decades after >their introduction), Richard Hills: Even Americans who use a Strong Club system quite often inconsistently also use a strong 1NT. Two issues are at play here. The obvious one is that many Americans (but not Edgar Kaplan) believe that the -300 or greater penalties suffered by weak notrumpers outweigh its descriptive and preemptive benefits (i.e. a weak 1NT is a ridiculously unsound method with the temporary advantage of SURPRISE!!!, so should be deemed to be a Special Partnership Understanding prohibited in novice tournaments). The not-so-obvious American objection to the weak 1NT is that a major suit partscore in a 4-4 fit is harder to reach. So strong notrumpers score +140, while weak notrumpers score +120. This second ACBL objection is self-incriminating. It reveals that many major ACBL events for experts use matchpoint pairs scoring (as opposed to the diametrically opposite ABF culture, in which there is only one major matchpoint pairs event for experts, in February, and even that event attracts a much smaller field than the immediately following major Swiss teams event at the same venue). Alain Gottcheiner: >but then tell me why we aren't allowed to alert doubles and >redoubles ? Richard Hills: Because, in Australia at least, unusual doubles and redoubles are pre- alerted. A case in point was last Sunday's Swiss Butler Pairs. At the start of our 8-board match I had taken particular care to explain in excruciating detail to our opponents that we played old-fashioned doubles of overcalls if our side opened the bidding with 1H or higher. Dealer: West Vulnerable: North-South WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH Hills Ali 1H (1) 1S X (2) Pass 2C (3) 2S X (4) Pass Pass Pass (1) Promising 10-14 hcp and 5+ hearts (2) Penalty double, pre-alerted but now self-alerting (3) Actually holding 9 hcp, 5/5 in hearts and clubs, plus a spade void (4) Still a penalty double East-West +500 Now this posting self-incriminatingly reveals: (a) I have a brain the size of a planet (b) I have this terrible pain in all the diodes down my left hand side (c) I like making obscure in-jokes for science-fiction reading blmlers (d) I am not Walter the Walrus Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 30 12:04:06 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:04:06 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> Message-ID: <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 3:01 PM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? >> >> intention was irrational, he is protected from himself and the least favourable rational action is substituted. 69B2 allows redress for the player who "has agreed to the loss of a trick that his side would likely have won had the play continued", but the converse does not apply. The non-claimers have no rights to tricks that their side would likely have won had the play continued if the only reason that they were likely to win them was because the declarer was likely to adopt an irrational line. >> +=+ Excluding circumstances itemized in the laws - see for example Law 70E1 - the Director has no concern with any question of rationality or irrationality. His task is to follow the line prescribed in the statement of claim, so long as it involves no irregularity, no illegal play, and to adjudicate whether claimer succeeds in winning the number of tricks claimed. A statement of claim may properly propose any lawful play even if it is deemed irrational. Let us also remind ourselves that in the laws 'irrational' means that the action is not logical or reasonable when assessed independently of the thinking of any player. This state is unaffected by the fact that in the mind of a player it appears rational or irrational. The scope of what is to be classified as irrational does not change according to the class of player; with intent carefully considered this concept was taken out of the laws. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Mon Mar 30 12:18:18 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:18:18 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 29/03/2009 11:28:52 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: > At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in South: > > North > S AK > H 32 > D none > C none > > South > S QJ > H none > D KQ > C none > > The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it could I have already seen this case on IBLF where the ruling (without comments) was "four tricks to declarer". (There it was stated that declarer had forgotten the Ace of Diamonds, believing that it was still out.) No, there, as here, it was stated that declarer was aware the ace of diamonds had been played. And based on the WBLC minute indicating that the defence cannot accept a lead from the wrong hand as part of a claim, I fully agree with your verdict, and I presume that would equally apply if the statement was "ruffing the two of hearts in South and then cross-ruffing". The lead from the wrong hand is cancelled, and the claim is allowed. If South calls for the two of hearts and then claims on a cross-ruff, however, the decision is different. And thanks for clarifying in another thread, Grattan, that the claimer's statement does not have be rational, just legal. Is this a WBFLC interpretation, or is there a Law that tells us this? From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 30 13:19:47 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:19:47 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000301c9b129$6fa29030$4ee7b090$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > Sent: 30. mars 2009 12:18 > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > In a message dated 29/03/2009 11:28:52 GMT Standard Time, > svenpran at online.no > writes: > > > At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in > South: > > > > North > > S AK > > H 32 > > D none > > C none > > > > South > > S QJ > > H none > > D KQ > > C none > > > > The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it > could > > I have already seen this case on IBLF where the ruling (without comments) > was "four tricks to declarer". (There it was stated that declarer had > forgotten the Ace of Diamonds, believing that it was still out.) > > No, there, as here, it was stated that declarer was aware the ace of > diamonds had been played. I may have misread, but in that case I don't understand why the claimer said anything at all about cross-ruff? Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 30 14:00:35 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:00:35 +0100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] References: Message-ID: <002b01c9b12f$260f0e70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:20 AM Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > Alain Gottcheiner: > but then tell me why we aren't allowed to alert doubles and redoubles ? > Richard Hills: > Because, in Australia at least, unusual doubles and redoubles are pre-alerted. < +=+ Alerting requirements are peculiar to the tournament and the bridge environment. They vary from place to place and are defined in regulation under Law 40B2(a). They should relate to what is commonly expected amongst the players in the tournament and exclude alerts that may well confuse players. Australian idiosyncrasies are therefore of little concern in Outer Mongolia ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 30 15:32:04 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:32:04 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> Grattan, please allow me to mince words: Grattan wrote: > > +=+ Excluding circumstances itemized in the laws - see for > example Law 70E1 - This is very unhelpful. We are talking about this law!!! > the Director has no concern with any > question of rationality or irrationality. His task is to follow > the line prescribed in the statement of claim, so long as it > involves no irregularity, no illegal play, and to adjudicate > whether claimer succeeds in winning the number of tricks > claimed. A statement of claim may properly propose any > lawful play even if it is deemed irrational. Totally unhelpful, since when it is deemed irrational, L70E becomes of application. > Let us also remind ourselves that in the laws 'irrational' > means that the action is not logical or reasonable when > assessed independently of the thinking of any player. This > state is unaffected by the fact that in the mind of a player > it appears rational or irrational. The scope of what is to > be classified as irrational does not change according to > the class of player; with intent carefully considered this > concept was taken out of the laws. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > But Grattan, the word "irrational" was not taken out of the laws, it is still there, in L70E. Now, we all agree that if a player issues a statement which, from the outside, is irrational (like finessing to a known bare king), we do rule that the line is taken, by saying that to this player, the line is not irrational (if he for example does not realize that the king is bare). So we must conclude that when L70E talks of a line that would be irrational, this must mean that the line must become irrational to the claimer, after his claim statement. Allow me to explain: Let's say a claimer says "finessing the king". However, this king is bare offside. Playing that line is irrational, from the outside. However, claimer has forgotten that one opponent discarded a card in this suit. When the first opponent shows out, this does not alter the claimer's view of the hand. He now thinks fourth hand has the king doubleton. Iin his mind, the line of giving the king the first trick rather than the second is still a rational one. So L70E does not apply "failure to follow the alternative line" (playing the ace rather than the queen) is not irrational, so he's not given this extra trick. Conclusion: the word (ir)rational MUST be viewed from within the mindset of the claimer. Anything else is nonsensical. And I quite agree that the notion "rational" is so clear-cut (when viewed in the right perspective) as to not need a qualifier "for the class of player involved". Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 30 15:35:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:35:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000301c9b129$6fa29030$4ee7b090$@no> References: <000301c9b129$6fa29030$4ee7b090$@no> Message-ID: <49D0CABF.5060209@skynet.be> Sven Pran wrote: > On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com >> Sent: 30. mars 2009 12:18 >> To: blml at amsterdamned.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? >> >> In a message dated 29/03/2009 11:28:52 GMT Standard Time, >> svenpran at online.no >> writes: >> >>> At our local club recently, a player had this ending with the lead in >> South: >>> North >>> S AK >>> H 32 >>> D none >>> C none >>> >>> South >>> S QJ >>> H none >>> D KQ >>> C none >>> >>> The ace of diamonds had gone, and the hearts were not winners, and it >> could >> >> I have already seen this case on IBLF where the ruling (without comments) >> was "four tricks to declarer". (There it was stated that declarer had >> forgotten the Ace of Diamonds, believing that it was still out.) >> >> No, there, as here, it was stated that declarer was aware the ace of >> diamonds had been played. > > I may have misread, but in that case I don't understand why the claimer said > anything at all about cross-ruff? > He could have been uncertain of either of two things: -whether the DA was still out (which it is said he wasn't); or -whether there were any trumps (well, spades) out. In the second case (as in the first), ruffing with the four top trumps seems like a safe line, even if you are ruffing certain winners. Now, when he is told that he's playing no-trump (after throwing the SA on the DK), he is, IMO, allowed to remember that the DQ is high, and I think he does not need many Masterpoints to be allowed to unblock the SA on the DQ. Herman. > Regards Sven > From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Mar 30 15:43:31 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:43:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c9b12f$260f0e70$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <002b01c9b12f$260f0e70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D0CC83.30103@ulb.ac.be> Grattan a ?crit : > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " We should easily convert even the Turks > to the obedience of our gospel, if only we > would agree among ourselves and unite in > some holy confederacy." > [Thomas Cranmer 1489-1556] > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 8:20 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] > > Alain Gottcheiner: > > but then tell me why we aren't allowed to alert > doubles and redoubles ? > > Richard Hills: > > Because, in Australia at least, unusual doubles > and redoubles are pre-alerted. > AG : see the point. The Belgian expert or sub-expert uses about 20-30 unusual doubles and redoubles ; perhaps Australians have fewer. So, what works down under doesn't work for us. And I'm still convinced that some unusual doubles are there to take profit from rules. Let's be more precise : there aren't two complexity levels, but three. 1. Your pick between unexpected penalty or semi-penalty (I like Weiis against 2-suited openings) and unexpected takeout (playing 1x (1y) 1NT (X) as take-out makes sense) or specific meanings for takeouts (what about spades over hearts ?). 2. Unusual meanings in situations where youi know there can be, e.g. artificial doubles of 1NT openings, redouble of Multi bids (I play them as mean "we'll play in my suit"), Polish un-doubles, tranasfer doubles for T-Walsh pairs, ... 3. Unusual meanings in situations where you don't expect them at all : like our redouble of 1m openings (shows a more or less balanced 6-8 count) or a redouble of a control-bid that shows exactly the Queen. If only 3. are to be pre-alerted, than can be made fairly quickly, but type 2. will nevertheless prove a nuisance if not alerted, and also if pre-alerted because of the time it consumes. Now, if some country legislates that one can't play that much artificial doubles if they can't exlpain them quickly, they'd rather legislate that one'd alert doubles. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Mon Mar 30 16:11:44 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:11:44 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D0CABF.5060209@skynet.be> References: <000301c9b129$6fa29030$4ee7b090$@no> <49D0CABF.5060209@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c9b141$74d75730$5e860590$@no> On Behalf Of Herman De Wael ............ > > I may have misread, but in that case I don't understand why the claimer said > > anything at all about cross-ruff? > > > > He could have been uncertain of either of two things: > -whether the DA was still out (which it is said he wasn't); or > -whether there were any trumps (well, spades) out. > > In the second case (as in the first), ruffing with the four top trumps > seems like a safe line, even if you are ruffing certain winners. True, I didn't think of that! > > Now, when he is told that he's playing no-trump (after throwing the SA > on the DK), he is, IMO, allowed to remember that the DQ is high, and I > think he does not need many Masterpoints to be allowed to unblock the SA > on the DQ. Precisely also my point. Regards Sven From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Mon Mar 30 17:23:28 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:23:28 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:32 PM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > But Grattan, the word "irrational" was not taken out of the laws, it is still there, in L70E. Now, we all agree that if a player issues a statement which, from the outside, is irrational (like finessing to a known bare king), we do rule that the line is taken, by saying that to this player, the line is not irrational (if he for example does not realize that the king is bare). > (Grattan) +=+ What we did was to remove it from the footnote so that the false link to class of player was broken. Now to be 'irrational' an action must be irrational in the dictionary sense and equally so for all players. However, your statement above errs in that we do not say we are allowing your play because to you it is not irrational; we say the play is allowed because it is a lawful play and it is what he proposes. Irrational plays are not excluded. +=+ < (Herman) So we must conclude that when L70E talks of a line that would be irrational, this must mean that the line must become irrational to the claimer, after his claim statement. < (Grattan) +=+ That player may think an action irrational but to meet the meaning of the law, by which the Director must abide, it must be irrational as defined above. Law 70E1 deals only with the case of a supplementary statement by claimer, not included in his original statement, and what in it the Director may allow, or may not allow. It tells us that if it would be irrational for any player not to do what claimer is belatedly proposing it will be allowed by the Director. As far as I recall this is now the only situation in which the Director is called upon to judge irrationality. Elsewhere it is not at issue - irrational actions are part of the game and permitted. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From geller at nifty.com Mon Mar 30 17:41:04 2009 From: geller at nifty.com (Robert Geller) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:41:04 +0900 Subject: [blml] belated explanation of convention Message-ID: <200903301541.AA18599@geller204.nifty.com> South (EW Vul, Dealer = East, matchpoints) holds KT AKQT732 42 82 The auction proceeds as follows W N E S - - P 1H X 2D* 3C 3H *no alert X P At this point, before calling, East asks South about the meaning of North's 2D bid. South replies that it was an artificial raise to 2H showing 6-9 points (whereas 2H would show 0-6). South apologizes for having forgotten that NS were using this agreement. The director is called, takes note of the circumstances, and instructs the players to play on, while informing them of the possibility of rectification. East now bids 3S and it is South's turn. What constraints, if any, is South subjected to as a result of the above sequence of events? -Bob ----------------------------------------------------- Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 30 18:10:54 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:10:54 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> No Grattan, simply wrong. Grattan wrote: > > Now, we all agree that if a player issues a statement which, from the > outside, is irrational (like finessing to a known bare king), we do rule > that the line is taken, by saying that to this player, the line is not > irrational (if he for example does not realize that the king is bare). > > > (Grattan) > +=+ What we did was to remove it from the footnote so that the > false link to class of player was broken. Now to be 'irrational' > an action must be irrational in the dictionary sense and equally so > for all players. So far, OK. > However, your statement above errs in that we > do not say we are allowing your play because to you it is not > irrational; we say the play is allowed because it is a lawful play > and it is what he proposes. Irrational plays are not excluded. +=+ > < No Grattan, being a lawful play is NOT enough - it has to be rational as well. Otherwise, L70E kicks in. And this does exclude irrational plays (well, it does via the triple negative: the alternative is not accepted because failure to adopt it would not be irrational - meaning that the stated line is still rational) > (Herman) > So we must conclude that when L70E talks of a line that would be > irrational, this must mean that the line must become irrational to the > claimer, after his claim statement. > < > (Grattan) > +=+ That player may think an action irrational but to meet the > meaning of the law, by which the Director must abide, it must > be irrational as defined above. Law 70E1 deals only with the > case of a supplementary statement by claimer, not included in > his original statement, and what in it the Director may allow, > or may not allow. No Grattan, you know as well as I do that when the claim statement has finished, it does not really matter who proposes the alternative line. When the claimer has said "I'll finesse the king", and all cards are shown, he discovers that the king is bare. At this time, the TD is called, and that is equivalent to claimer proposing an alternative line. The Director then needs to evaluate if "failure to adopt" the alternative line is irrational. That is the same as deciding whether or not it is rational to play the queen. By your definition of the term, it is irrational to finesse to a bare king. Only if we take declarer's mindset into account (claimer believes there are two cards out and LHO has shown out), can we say that playing anything but the Ace is rational. And that is all I wanted you to see and agree to. Rationality needs to be looked at from the eye of the claimer. > It tells us that if it would be irrational for > any player not to do what claimer is belatedly proposing it > will be allowed by the Director. As far as I recall this is now > the only situation in which the Director is called upon to judge > irrationality. Elsewhere it is not at issue - irrational actions > are part of the game and permitted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Well, Grattan, with all due respect, irrational actions are not to be used after a claim statement. L70E forbids them. Both before and after the claim statement has broken down. Of course, irrational actions in the eye of the claimer. By your sentence above: "irrational actions are part of the game and permitted" every claim boils down to zero tricks for declarer. I can always find a set of irrational actions and revokes that lead to zero tricks (except perhaps a hand containing nothing but top trumps). Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Mon Mar 30 18:12:32 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:12:32 +0200 Subject: [blml] belated explanation of convention In-Reply-To: <200903301541.AA18599@geller204.nifty.com> References: <200903301541.AA18599@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <49D0EF70.90204@skynet.be> How can there be any restriction on South's actions? He has remembered (belatedly) his system. The way you tell it, he has no UI. Herman. Robert Geller wrote: > South (EW Vul, Dealer = East, matchpoints) holds > KT AKQT732 42 82 > > The auction proceeds as follows > W N E S > - - P 1H > X 2D* 3C 3H *no alert > X P > > At this point, before calling, East asks South about the meaning > of North's 2D bid. South replies that it was an artificial > raise to 2H showing 6-9 points (whereas 2H would show 0-6). > South apologizes for having forgotten that NS were using this > agreement. The director is called, takes note of the > circumstances, and instructs the players to play on, while > informing them of the possibility of rectification. > > East now bids 3S and it is South's turn. What constraints, > if any, is South subjected to as a result of the above > sequence of events? > > -Bob > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Robert (Bob) Geller, Tokyo, Japan geller at nifty.com > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Mon Mar 30 21:47:02 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:47:02 -0800 Subject: [blml] belated explanation of convention References: <200903301541.AA18599@geller204.nifty.com> Message-ID: <02F22D1275564BA4B0416BFA38456A18@MARVLAPTOP> > South (EW Vul, Dealer = East, matchpoints) holds > KT AKQT732 42 82 > > The auction proceeds as follows > W N E S > - - P 1H > X 2D* 3C 3H *no alert > X P > > At this point, before calling, East asks South about the meaning > of North's 2D bid. South replies that it was an artificial > raise to 2H showing 6-9 points (whereas 2H would show 0-6). > South apologizes for having forgotten that NS were using this > agreement. The director is called, takes note of the > circumstances, and instructs the players to play on, while > informing them of the possibility of rectification. > > East now bids 3S and it is South's turn. What constraints, > if any, is South subjected to as a result of the above > sequence of events? None, but West had better not make a call or play possibly based on the knowledge that East is interested in diamonds, and North had better not make a call (e,g, 4H) possibly based on the knowledge that South forgot the convention. Also, if East knew the answer and asked for West's benefit, that is illlegal, even though the "pro question" is merely called "improper" in L20G, watered down (by whom?) from the WBFLC's previous stance. Richard Hills assures me that the consequences will be major for this form of cheating. Not in ACBL-land. East's question should be classed as an irregularity because it does not follow the correct procedure provided in L20F1. Then L20F3 says that's okay! Who stuck that in? L16 has always applied, but why sanction the irregularity by saying "a player may ask concerning a single call"? Will L16B1 really be applied? Almost never, in my experience, and that includes NABCs. Such questions can cause unnecessary problems if the answer is plainly shown on the convention card, as this probably was. The purpose of the CC is to disclose partnership agreements to opponents. and that is where they should seek answers to any questions they may have. Forcing opponents to create UI unnecessarily should be forbidden. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Mon Mar 30 23:27:44 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:27:44 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <002b01c9b12f$260f0e70$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: >>A quarter-century ago I unfairly gained good results with very >>unsound methods, merely because those ridiculously unsound methods >>had the temporary advantage of SURPRISE!!! >+=+ Alerting requirements are peculiar to the tournament >and the bridge environment. They vary from place to place >and are defined in regulation under Law 40B2(a). They >should relate to what is commonly expected amongst the >players in the tournament and exclude alerts that may well >confuse players. Australian idiosyncrasies are therefore of >little concern in Outer Mongolia > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Grand Final of the World Pairs Championship, Biarritz 1982 You and your current opponents are in contention for the gold medal. Dealer: East Vulnerable: Both You, East, hold: 975 62 63 Q87532 What call do you make? What other calls do you consider making? Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 31 00:04:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:04:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] belated explanation of convention In-Reply-To: <02F22D1275564BA4B0416BFA38456A18@MARVLAPTOP> References: <200903301541.AA18599@geller204.nifty.com> <02F22D1275564BA4B0416BFA38456A18@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: <49D141DA.5000100@skynet.be> Marvin L French wrote: > Forcing opponents to create UI > unnecessarily should be forbidden. > There is a good solution to this problem - allowing opponents to avoid creating UI by allowing them to give answers that are consistent with what the partner expects the answer to be! > Marv > Marvin L French > San Diego, CA > www.marvinfrench.com > Herman. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 31 00:29:12 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:29:12 +1100 Subject: [blml] Square root of two [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody (1950): "The Egyptians of the First Dynasty were already civilized in most respects. They had hieroglyphics, metal weapons for killing foreigners, numerous government officials, death, and taxes." Grattan Endicott: [big snip] >Elsewhere it is not at issue - irrational actions are part of >the game and permitted. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Law 74B1: As a matter of courtesy a player should refrain from: paying insufficient attention to the game. Richard Hills: In my personal opinion Law 74B1 does not apply to irrational calls or plays, but rather to inattentive actions such as, for example, repeatedly requesting a Law 20B review of the auction. Law 72A: ...The chief object is to obtain a higher score than other contestants... Richard Hills: In my personal opinion Law 72A would only apply to intentional irrational calls or plays such as, for example, throwing a Calcutta match to opponents you hold shares in. Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 31 01:55:49 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 00:55:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> [Gratttan Endicott] Let us also remind ourselves that in the laws 'irrational' means that the action is not logical or reasonable when assessed independently of the thinking of any player. This state is unaffected by the fact that in the mind of a player it appears rational or irrational. The scope of what is to be classified as irrational does not change according to the class of player; with intent carefully considered this concept was taken out of the laws. [Nigel] Is Grattan seems saying that we mustn't judge rationality by what is rational for *this* player -- or for the average player in *this* event -- but rather by what is rational in unspecified general terms. Whatever this means, it does not seem to be clear to the average director. But, at least, the basic WBFLC principle is upheld: the delegation of legal power to the director. The director must rely mainly on his own judgement and his feelings about the players in dispute. Consistency is of less importance. This also means that, whenever you have lost the place, you can hardly lose by claiming, without stating a line of play (providing that the director is a fair card-player and not a sworn enemy). Current claim law abides by the unstated WBFLC principle that law should be sophisticated and complex enough to create grey areas that provide scope for endless dispute about their meaning, in BLML and elsewhere. This also guarantees employment for directors with lots of intriguing calls. In view of this, it is less surprizing that the simple effective on-line rule is so unpopular among directors ("To claim,declarer exposes his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double dummy"}. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 31 02:38:42 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:38:42 +1100 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On the Proceedings Against America (1775): Lost is our old simplicity of times, The world abounds with laws, and teems with crimes. Nigel Guthrie, petitio principii: >...the simple effective on-line rule...("To claim,declarer exposes >his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double >dummy"}. Richard Hills quibbles: Simple yes; effective no. An online declarer is about to fail by one trick in her contract, because he has forgotten about the outstanding defensive trump. But she luckily claims, so when the defenders object to the claim this reminds him that a trump is missing, so she quickly draws the trump and thus he makes a contract she would normally fail to make. Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 31 02:51:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:51:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:10 PM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > Well, Grattan, with all due respect, irrational actions are not to be > used after a claim statement. L70E forbids them. Both before and after > the claim statement has broken down. Of course, irrational actions in > the eye of the claimer. > +=+ Herman, Law 70E only applies when *claimer* proposes somethimng outwith his original claim statement. It does not prohibit the Director from allowing irrational plays. You need to read the law with greater care. In respect of irrationality the only thing it says is that if the claimer proposes a play not included in his original statement the Director is to allow it if, for any player, it would be irrational not to adopt it. ~Grattan ~ +=+ From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Tue Mar 31 05:18:55 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:18:55 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49D0CC83.30103@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Leon Trotsky (1879-1940): "Old age is the most unexpected of all things that happen to a man." Alain Gottcheiner: >And I'm still convinced that some unusual doubles are there to take >profit from rules. Richard Hills: What is rewarded is what gets done. If a Regulating Authority chooses to reward partnerships playing "unexpected" Doubles by ruling: (a) Doubles need not be pre-alerted, and (b) Doubles must not be alerted, and (c) Doubles need not be post-alerted, then naturally there is an incentive for a partnership to adopt a very unsound but very unexpected doubling style to gain a temporary but very unfair advantage of SURPRISE!!! Alain Gottcheiner: >Let's be more precise: there aren't two complexity levels, but three. > >1. Your pick between unexpected penalty or semi-penalty (I like Weiis >against 2-suited openings) and unexpected takeout (playing 1x (1y) >1NT (X) as take-out makes sense) or specific meanings for takeouts >(what about spades over hearts ?). > >2. Unusual meanings in situations where you know there can be, e.g. >artificial doubles of 1NT openings, redouble of Multi bids (I play >them as mean "we'll play in my suit"), Polish un-doubles, transfer >doubles for T-Walsh pairs. > >3. Unusual meanings in situations where you don't expect them at all: >like our redouble of 1m openings (shows a more or less balanced 6-8 >count) or a redouble of a control-bid that shows exactly the Queen. Richard Hills: If I am interpreting Alain's categorisation correctly, Category 1 Doubles are those where there is a clear majority consensus for Meaning A, but the opponents are well aware that a significant minority of the field will adopt Meaning B. In Australia (but not necessarily in Outer Mongolia) a Category 1 Double would not need to be pre-alerted. Category 2 Doubles are those for which there is no clear consensus for Meaning A, B, C or D, hence the opponents are well aware that the Double might have an arbitrarily "funny" Meaning. In Australia (but not necessarily in Outer Mongolia) a Category 2 Double would not need to be pre-alerted. Category 3 Doubles are SURPRISE!!! Doubles, catching opponents completely off-guard with a totally unexpected Meaning Omega. In Australia (but not necessarily in Belgium) a Category 3 Double would indeed need to be Pre Alerted, Post Alerted, Prominently Displayed On The System Cards, And Frequently Mentioned In Casual Conversation. Best wishes R. J. 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 Mar 31 10:33:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:33:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> Grattan, with all due respect, you are wrong. Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " Seeing a few things might help her > out, 'cause it's obvious her hearing > ain't none too good." > ~ Julius Lester. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:10 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > >> Well, Grattan, with all due respect, irrational actions are not to be >> used after a claim statement. L70E forbids them. Both before and after >> the claim statement has broken down. Of course, irrational actions in >> the eye of the claimer. >> > +=+ Herman, > Law 70E only applies when *claimer* proposes somethimng outwith > his original claim statement. It does not prohibit the Director from > allowing irrational plays. You need to read the law with greater care. > In respect of irrationality the only thing it says is that if the claimer > proposes a play not included in his original statement the Director > is to allow it if, for any player, it would be irrational not to adopt it. > ~Grattan ~ +=+ > L70E applies when claimer proposes something. There is no time limit on this proposal, nor is there any limit on partner proposing it in his place. So if there is an alternative, more successful line, it will get noticed, and thereafter, proposed by claimer. So L70E applies all the time. The other argument was already shown by me. The triple negative is actually a quadruple one (the alternative will NOT be accepted UNLESS the FAILURE to adopt it would be IRrational) and it is logically equal to the following : "the stated line will not be followed if it is irrational". So sorry Grattan, but stated irrational plays ARE NOT to be accepted. As always "irrational" by me must be read as irrational for the mind of claimer. I also believe that claim statements are always rational to start with, so we need some change of situation before a stated line can become irrational afterwards. It may be that Grattan fails to understand what I have always meant with "irrational" and that this is why he insists that irrational statements must be followed. When considering irrationality from the outside alone, there is a possibility of irrational claim statements, and they must be followed up to some degree. However, that definition of irrationality is totally unhelpful, since it does not tell us when irrational statements are to be followed and when not. With my definition of irrationality (within in the mindset of claimer), the distinction becomes easy: as soon as the stated line becomes irrational, it need no longer be followed. OK? Herman. > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 31 10:36:14 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:36:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Gratttan Endicott] > Let us also remind ourselves that in the laws 'irrational' > means that the action is not logical or reasonable when > assessed independently of the thinking of any player. This > state is unaffected by the fact that in the mind of a player > it appears rational or irrational. The scope of what is to > be classified as irrational does not change according to > the class of player; with intent carefully considered this > concept was taken out of the laws. > > [Nigel] > Is Grattan seems saying that we mustn't judge rationality by what is rational for *this* player -- or for the average player in *this* event -- but rather by what is rational in unspecified general terms. Whatever this means, it does not seem to be clear to the average director. But, at least, the basic WBFLC principle is upheld: the delegation of legal power to the director. The director must rely mainly on his own judgement and his feelings about the players in dispute. Consistency is of less importance. > > This also means that, whenever you have lost the place, you can hardly lose by claiming, without stating a line of play (providing that the director is a fair card-player and not a sworn enemy). > > Current claim law abides by the unstated WBFLC principle that law should be sophisticated and complex enough to create grey areas that provide scope for endless dispute about their meaning, in BLML and elsewhere. > > This also guarantees employment for directors with lots of intriguing calls. > > In view of this, it is less surprizing that the simple effective on-line rule is so unpopular among directors ("To claim,declarer exposes his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double dummy"}. > Won't work, Nigel. Am I allowed, as defender, to play declarer's cards? In that case, he'll throw a number of winners on winners. Is claimer allowed to play his own cards? Then he'll find the best line for sure. Only by having the director play the cards can we achieve a reasonable claim ruling. And for that, we need him to know what are "normal" lines. From PeterEidt at t-online.de Tue Mar 31 11:13:20 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:13:20 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?basic_claiming_principles=3F?= In-Reply-To: <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > The other argument was already shown by me. The triple negative is > actually a quadruple one (the alternative will NOT be accepted UNLESS > the FAILURE to adopt it would be IRrational) and it is logically equal > to the following : "the stated line will not be followed if it is > irrational". This conclusion is nonsense. "Unless" in this context is not a negation but a short form for "except if". BTW: an "unstated line" is not the same as an "alternative". So the shortened sentence might be paraphrased as "The TD shall not accept an unstated line, except if the failure to adopt it would be irrational." If the failure to adopt that line would be irrational that means that "every (bridge playing) cretin" would adopt that line. So, next paraphrase: "The TD shall not accept an unstated line, except if every cretin would adopt that line of play." From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 31 12:14:40 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:14:40 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be> Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> The other argument was already shown by me. The triple negative is >> actually a quadruple one (the alternative will NOT be accepted UNLESS >> the FAILURE to adopt it would be IRrational) and it is logically equal >> to the following : "the stated line will not be followed if it is >> irrational". > > This conclusion is nonsense. > > "Unless" in this context is not a negation but a > short form for "except if". Is that not a negation? > BTW: an "unstated line" is not the same as an "alternative". > No? then what is either other than the other? > So the shortened sentence might be paraphrased > as "The TD shall not accept an unstated line, except > if the failure to adopt it would be irrational." > > If the failure to adopt that line would be irrational that > means that "every (bridge playing) cretin" would adopt > that line. > > So, next paraphrase: "The TD shall not accept an unstated > line, except if every cretin would adopt that line of play." > > And, is that not what I am saying? I really don't see what you are argueing here? Do you agree with Grattan or with me? Sorry Peter - try again, please. Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 31 12:17:09 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:17:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be><002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:13 AM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > So, next paraphrase: "The TD shall not accept an unstated > line, except if every cretin would adopt that line of play." > +=+ That's quite a good effort Peter. However, the absolute truth is that rationality and, especially, irrationality are not to be judged against the minds of players but against absolute standards of logic and reason. That is what was argued so forcefully by Bill Schoder in the drafting subcommittee. The connection to players is that such standards apply equally to all and do not vary with the thinking processes of players. Herman is on another planet in this regard and simply fails to understand the law as it is now expressed. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 13:31:39 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:31:39 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49D1FF1B.1050804@talktalk.net> [Nigel] The simple effective on-line rule...("To claim,declarer exposes his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double-dummy"}. [Richard Hills] Simple yes; effective no. An online declarer is about to fail by one trick in her contract, because he has forgotten about the outstanding defensive trump. But she luckily claims, so when the defenders object to the claim this reminds him that a trump is missing, so she quickly draws the trump and thus he makes a contract she would normally fail to make. [Nigel] The on-line rule - - Is understood by on-line players. - Saves unnecessary thought. - Speeds up the game. - Doesn't prompt director-calls. Thus, it is simpler and more effective than the face-to-face laws. But the on-line rule isn't perfect. Richard hills points out one drawback: Asking declarer to play on may alert him to a problem of which he was unaware. Recent posts illustrate analogous problems with face-to-face claims. Another (theoretical) problem with the on-line rule is that a secretary bird may claim to tempt opponents into providing a clue, for example, as to which way to take a 2-way finesse. This ploy fails, in practice, because on-line players are wise to the danger. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 13:45:09 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:45:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> [Nige1] "To claim,declarer exposes his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double dummy. [Herman de Wael] Won't work, Nigel. Am I allowed, as defender, to play declarer's cards? In that case, he'll throw a number of winners on winners. Is claimer allowed to play his own cards? Then he'll find the best line for sure. Only by having the director play the cards can we achieve a reasonable claim ruling. And for that, we need him to know what are "normal" lines. [Nige2] Sorry, I forgot that some BLMLers don't play on-line. I'll try to make myself clearer: The claiming declarer continues single-dummy. The disputing defenders play with sight of declarer's hand as well as dummy. Each plays his own hand. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 31 14:46:38 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:46:38 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:17:09 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " Seeing a few things might help her > out, 'cause it's obvious her hearing > ain't none too good." > ~ Julius Lester. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > >> >> So, next paraphrase: "The TD shall not accept an unstated >> line, except if every cretin would adopt that line of play." >> > +=+ That's quite a good effort Peter. However, the absolute > truth is that rationality and, especially, irrationality are not to > be judged against the minds of players but against absolute > standards of logic and reason. That is what was argued so > forcefully by Bill Schoder in the drafting subcommittee. The > connection to players is that such standards apply equally to > all and do not vary with the thinking processes of players. > Herman is on another planet in this regard and simply fails > to understand the law as it is now expressed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I would have interpreted L70E1 the same as Grattan -- that the claiming statement cannot be replaced by director or claimer just because it is irrational (not normal). So I don't understand Herman's insistence that Grattan is wrong. But I fail to see anything wrong with Herman's interpretation, which was supported by most blmlers responding to my question. It seems they are arguing about when the director CAN accepted unstated lines of play. The laws are speak only to when director does not accept unstated lines of play. Or, they are just coming up with different answers to the question of when the claiming/clarifcation statement can be abandoned. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 31 15:12:00 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 08:12:00 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:17:09 -0500, Grattan wrote: > > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " Seeing a few things might help her > out, 'cause it's obvious her hearing > ain't none too good." > ~ Julius Lester. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > >> >> So, next paraphrase: "The TD shall not accept an unstated >> line, except if every cretin would adopt that line of play." >> > +=+ That's quite a good effort Peter. However, the absolute > truth is that rationality and, especially, irrationality are not to > be judged against the minds of players but against absolute > standards of logic and reason. That is what was argued so > forcefully by Bill Schoder in the drafting subcommittee. The > connection to players is that such standards apply equally to > all and do not vary with the thinking processes of players. > Herman is on another planet in this regard and simply fails > to understand the law as it is now expressed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I am clueless what absolute standards of logic and reason might be if they are not in the minds of players. I mean, you can look at a person's conclusion and think to yourself that it's crazy, but they might have been perfectly logical but just had a faulty assumption. (For example, one declarer used the principle "eight ever, nine never" to try to drop the king in a nine-card fit.) Or they could be correct and you are the one making the mistake. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 31 15:03:12 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:03:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <000001c9b201$0cfb0a60$26f11f20$@com> If in this position: 32 32 None None None None AK QJ None None AK QJ 65 None 32 None declarer, thinking that spades are trumps, leads a heart from dummy and then spreads his cards announcing that he will ruff it before cross-ruffing the rest of the tricks, how many tricks is he awarded assuming that [a] there are in fact no trumps and [b] the lead is in fact in the South hand? If instead declarer spreads his cards and announces that he will lead a heart from dummy and ruff it before cross-ruffing the rest of the tricks, how many tricks is he awarded in the same circumstances? If your answers to these questions differ, do you think that the Laws under which you are ruling make sense? David Burn London, England From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 31 15:14:59 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:14:59 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be><002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D21753.1050001@skynet.be> Grattan wrote: > > Grattan Endicott also ************************************ > " Seeing a few things might help her > out, 'cause it's obvious her hearing > ain't none too good." > ~ Julius Lester. > "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Eidt" > To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" > Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 10:13 AM > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > >> So, next paraphrase: "The TD shall not accept an unstated >> line, except if every cretin would adopt that line of play." >> > +=+ That's quite a good effort Peter. However, the absolute > truth is that rationality and, especially, irrationality are not to > be judged against the minds of players but against absolute > standards of logic and reason. That is what was argued so > forcefully by Bill Schoder in the drafting subcommittee. The > connection to players is that such standards apply equally to > all and do not vary with the thinking processes of players. > Herman is on another planet in this regard and simply fails > to understand the law as it is now expressed. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > No Grattan, you are mistaken. I agree with you that the standards of rationality can be universal. But what I am saying is that for something to be (ir)rational, it needs to be checked against a particular knowledge. Let's do this by example. If a suit is distributed like this: AQ - Kx xx Then it is rational to play small and the Queen. OK? (supposing there are entries back to hand) But if a suit is distributed like this: AQ - K xx Then it is irrational to play anything but the Ace. OK? Now according to you, Grattan, this (ir)rationality is the same for anyone. Then tell me how you are going to rule a claim by a player in the second situation, but who thinks he's in the first one. If you rule according to L70E, and according to your definition of rationality, you must allow the alternate proposed line of playing the ace, since the failure to adopt that line would be irrational. Sorry Grattan, but that simply will not do. For the purpose of L70E, we must judge the rationality of a particular line according to the image the claimer has of the hand. Otherwise, there is no sense in having a claim law - just put it in deepfinesse and let the rationality depend on the cards. I still believe Grattan has failed to understand precisely what I am trying to say here, since it is impossible that he misunderstands what I am trying to convey here. Herman. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Tue Mar 31 15:18:02 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:18:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> I agree with Nigel's asessment that the on-line law works, but it only does so because of one thing: claimer does not see which of the two defenders has failed to accept his claim. So he does not know which way to finesse. This won't be practicle in F2F. Herman. Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Nige1] > "To claim,declarer exposes his hand; defenders may dispute the claim, by playing on, double dummy. > > [Herman de Wael] > Won't work, Nigel. Am I allowed, as defender, to play declarer's cards? > In that case, he'll throw a number of winners on winners. Is claimer > allowed to play his own cards? Then he'll find the best line for sure. > Only by having the director play the cards can we achieve a reasonable > claim ruling. And for that, we need him to know what are "normal" lines. > > [Nige2] > Sorry, I forgot that some BLMLers don't play on-line. I'll try to make myself clearer: The claiming declarer continues single-dummy. The disputing defenders play with sight of declarer's hand as well as dummy. Each plays his own hand. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From dalburn at btopenworld.com Tue Mar 31 15:28:44 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:28:44 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D21753.1050001@skynet.be> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be><002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D21753.1050001@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000101c9b204$9d801500$d8803f00$@com> [HdW] But if a suit is distributed like this AQ - K xx Then it is irrational to play anything but the Ace. OK? [DALB] You need to be a little careful about this sort of thing. By extension, one might imagine that if a suit is distributed like this: KJ32 1098 76 AQ54 then it is irrational to lose a trick in the suit. However: 765432 AK A KJ32 None QJ1098 None QJ1098 J1098765432 Q 1098 76 AK 765432 K AQ54 South, declarer in 4NT on a club lead from West, cannot succeed if he wins the first trick in either hand, but the contract is cold if he does not. Would those who argue that rationality exists independent of a claimer who might be doing the reasoning uphold the notion that ducking a club in the above position is rational play, even though no cretin would actually follow such a line? David Burn London, England From jrhind at therock.bm Tue Mar 31 15:43:50 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:43:50 -0300 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000001c9b201$0cfb0a60$26f11f20$@com> Message-ID: In either case he will make no more tricks. In case a) and b) West will take the remaining 4 tricks, assuming that West in case b) exercises the option to accept the lead from the wrong hand. Jack On 3/31/09 10:03 AM, "David Burn" wrote: > If in this position: > > 32 > 32 > None > None > None None > AK QJ > None None > AK QJ > 65 > None > 32 > None > > declarer, thinking that spades are trumps, leads a heart from dummy and then > spreads his cards announcing that he will ruff it before cross-ruffing the > rest of the tricks, how many tricks is he awarded assuming that [a] there > are in fact no trumps and [b] the lead is in fact in the South hand? > > If instead declarer spreads his cards and announces that he will lead a > heart from dummy and ruff it before cross-ruffing the rest of the tricks, > how many tricks is he awarded in the same circumstances? > > If your answers to these questions differ, do you think that the Laws under > which you are ruling make sense? > > David Burn > London, England > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 16:04:10 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:04:10 +0100 Subject: [blml] Announcing (re)doubles Message-ID: <49D222DA.2080401@talktalk.net> A few years ago, the EBU LEC implemented announcement regulations: When partner uses any of a small set of specified common conventions, you announce "Strong forcing" or "Stayman" or "15-17 may have singleton", or whatever is appropriate. If you have some peculiar understanding, then you alert instead. I was among many players who objected to the introduction of announcements. We predicted that the regulation would discriminate against deaf players. We feared that neighbouring tables would overhear. And so on. On balance, our criticism was mistaken. In practice, announcements work well. They save time and reduce unauthorised information. The EBU LEC are vindicated Players congratulate them. It is a pity that announcements are not mandated in TNLB. They work, so well, that they could replace *all* alerts. But that is not the main purpose of this post. It has been suggested that the EU announcement system be extended to *doubles* (and perhaps redoubles). That is an excellent idea. Current EBU regulations mandate that you alert partner's doubles except - - take-out doubles of natural suit bids. - penalty doubles of artificial bids and notrump. Players get this wrong in many common contexts e.g. (1N "12-14") _P (2H "Spades") _P; (2S) _X The transfer completion (2S) is technically an artificial bid, so if partner's double is takeout, then it should be alerted, but, understandably, few players get this right. e.g. (1H) _X (_1S) _X If the second double is penalty, then it should be alerted but few do this. The simplest interim solution is to mandate that you announce partner's doubles as "Penalty" and "Takeout". If you do neither then opponents deduce that the double is lead-directing, or competitive, or something else. The EBU should adopt this regulation. Other legislatures including the WBFLC should consider it. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Tue Mar 31 16:04:22 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:04:22 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott Hail up to the size of baseballs is reported to accompany a severe storm moving out of Parker County and into northwestern Tarrant County. "Some serious damage can be had with hail that size," said Chief Meteorologist Pete Delkus. A severe thunderstorm warning is in effect for Tarrant, Denton and Wise counties until 11:15 p.m." [ Dallas News, 31 March 2009] "'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > Peter Eidt wrote: >> From: Herman De Wael >>> The other argument was already shown by me. The >>> triple negative is actually a quadruple one (the >>> alternative will NOT be accepted UNLESS the ??? FAILURE to adopt it would be IRrational) and it is >>> logically equal to the following : "the stated line will >>> not be followed if it is irrational". >> >> This conclusion is nonsense. >> +=+ It is a non-sequitur. There is nothing in the law that stops the Director following a line proposed by the claimer because it is irrational. Herman stands the law upon its head, and himself with it. Irrational plays are *not* excluded by law. What Law 70E1 does is to stop the Director disallowing a claimer's supplementarily proposed play if not to make that play would be irrational. ~ G ~ +=+ From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 16:32:32 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:32:32 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000001c9b201$0cfb0a60$26f11f20$@com> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be> <001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <000001c9b201$0cfb0a60$26f11f20$@com> Message-ID: <49D22980.5030409@talktalk.net> [David Burn] If in this position: 32 32 None None None None AK QJ None None AK QJ 65 None 32 None [1] declarer, thinking that spades are trumps, leads a heart from dummy and then spreads his cards announcing that he will ruff it before cross-ruffing the rest of the tricks, how many tricks is he awarded assuming that [a] there are in fact no trumps and [b] the lead is in fact in the South hand? [2] If instead declarer spreads his cards and announces that he will lead a heart from dummy and ruff it before cross-ruffing the rest of the tricks, how many tricks is he awarded in the same circumstances? [3] If your answers to these questions differ, do you think that the Laws under which you are ruling make sense? [Nigel] Great example, David. If I correctly understand Grattan's interpretation of current claim law, then the answers are: [1] No tricks for declarer in the first case. [2] 4 tricks for declarer in the second case. [3] Some directors may appreciate the logic but few players would be happy. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 16:38:37 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:38:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000101c9b204$9d801500$d8803f00$@com> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be><002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D21753.1050001@skynet.be> <000101c9b204$9d801500$d8803f00$@com> Message-ID: <49D22AED.9030005@talktalk.net> [David Burn] You need to be a little careful about this sort of thing. By extension, one might imagine that if a suit is distributed like this: KJ32 1098 76 AQ54 then it is irrational to lose a trick in the suit. However: 765432 AK A KJ32 None QJ1098 None QJ1098 J1098765432 Q 1098 76 AK 765432 K AQ54 South, declarer in 4NT on a club lead from West, cannot succeed if he wins the first trick in either hand, but the contract is cold if he does not. Would those who argue that rationality exists independent of a claimer who might be doing the reasoning uphold the notion that ducking a club in the above position is rational play, even though no cretin would actually follow such a line? [Nigel] David provides us with another pretty and convincing example! I think that according to the dictionary definition, the "rational" play is the one that Helgemo (rather than Deep Finesse) would make. From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 17:25:09 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:25:09 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> [Herman de Wale] I agree with Nigel's asessment that the on-line law works, but it only does so because of one thing: claimer does not see which of the two defenders has failed to accept his claim. So he does not know which way to finesse. This won't be practicle in F2F. Herman. [Nigel] How does delcarer know which way to finesse, if it is always Declarer's LHO who disputes the claim? From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 17:29:52 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:29:52 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D22AED.9030005@talktalk.net> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be><002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D21753.1050001@skynet.be> <000101c9b204$9d801500$d8803f00$@com> <49D22AED.9030005@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49D236F0.70405@talktalk.net> I apologise Herman, I spelled your name wrongly. It wasn't deliberate. Sorry. From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Mar 31 18:57:02 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:57:02 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:25:09 -0500, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman de Wale] > I agree with Nigel's asessment that the on-line law works, but it only > does so because of one thing: claimer does not see which of the two > defenders has failed to accept his claim. So he does not know which way > to finesse. This won't be practicle in F2F. Herman. > > [Nigel] > How does delcarer know which way to finesse, if it is always Declarer's > LHO who disputes the claim? Except for the tediousness, doesn't it become a good strategy to always dispute every claim? From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 19:41:01 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:41:01 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49D255AD.9030701@talktalk.net> [Robert Frick] Except for the tediousness, doesn't it become a good strategy to always dispute every claim? [Nigel] Perhaps -- under both *on-line* and *off-line* claim laws. But the difference is that a disputed on-line claim still speeds up the game because declarer has already decided what to do and defenders can usually play faster, with knowledge of all 4 hands :) Of course the law could be changed to restrict the number of mistaken challenges that you are allowed per match. From ehaa at starpower.net Tue Mar 31 22:26:57 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:26:57 -0400 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <31F1C436-1C85-4097-A127-1206D2D8B12E@starpower.net> On Mar 27, 2009, at 5:24 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:27:51 -0500, Herman De Wael > > wrote: >> >> Robert Frick wrote: >>> >>> Yes I do, since I maintain that when a line becomes irrational, >>> What if it starts out irrational? >> >> It cannot. >> Not if you read the word irrational in the way I intended it - within >> the framework of the claimer. Finessing for the bare queen, as in >> your >> example on blml is irrational, but not for the player who thinks >> (whatever it is he thinks). >> Every claim statement must be considered rational within the >> claimer's >> frame of mind, at the moment he utters it. >> The claim statement can only "become" irrational when something >> happens >> to change that frame of mind. This can be something very small, like >> claimer having a (first) look at the actual lay-out. "what am I >> sayin? >> of course I play the ace first". The question is then what >> happened to >> make the claimer notice that his statement has become irrational, >> and if >> it is something normal, TD may allow the change. >> >> OK, Robert? > > The idea that all thought is rational is intriguing. Ironically, in my > example of finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit, declarer was > logically following the rule "eight ever, nine never" (the minor > premise > being that there was an 8-card suit in dummy). But that idea > doesn't fit > the traditional view of mental illness or I suspect Richard's > opinion of > some of my postings. > > I think irrational has to be evaluated from the outside -- it's the > line > of play that is irrational (or not normal), not some person's > thinking. Right. Given the situation, an action is either rational or irrational regardless of the state of the person who performed it -- an irrational act may be the product of irrational thinking, or may be the product of perfectly rational thinking based on false information. Asking whether a particular action is or is not "rational within the claimer's frame of mind" is operationally meaningless. There's no such thing as a person who is irrational in his own mind. > I > think blmlers allowed finessing for the queen in an 11-card fit > because, > even though it seemed irrational, nothing had occurred to warrant > changing > the claim statement. And I think most blmlers will not allow an "aha" > moment to be enough to change a claim statement, if that is what > you are > proposing. I think we "allow" it because there's nothing in the law to give us a choice in the matter, as long as the line of play is "stated" and legal. It is only "unstated line[s] of play" [L70E1] that we get to "allow" or "reject" based on "rationality" or lack thereof. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From nigelguthrie at talktalk.net Tue Mar 31 23:35:07 2009 From: nigelguthrie at talktalk.net (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:35:07 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <49D28C8B.60205@talktalk.net> Here is a simpler deal that may illustrate David Burns's point West ................ East S: A K Q J .......... S: 5 4 3 2 H: A 3 .............. H: K 2 D: A 7 6 ............ D: 5 4 3 2 C: A 6 5 4 .......... C: K 3 2 -- (4H) _P (_P) 4S AP North leads HQ, declarer plays dummy's HK and claims 10 tricks without stating a line. South calls the director to dispute the claim, poiting out that he can and wlll ruff HK. Declarer now says he will unblock HA. As director, do you allow this? or, instead, do you insist that declarer plays irrationally? From HauffHJ at aol.com Tue Mar 31 17:09:56 2009 From: HauffHJ at aol.com (HauffHJ at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:09:56 EDT Subject: [blml] Fwd: 2008RLAW Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090331/195306af/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: HauffHJ at aol.com Subject: 2008RLAW Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:07:40 EDT Size: 100827 Url: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090331/195306af/attachment-0001.eml