From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Apr 1 00:20:20 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:20:20 -0400 Subject: [blml] Suspicious Header Message-ID: <49D29724.7030808@consolidated.net> OK...I give up! Why is my header suspicious? --Bob Park From mfrench1 at san.rr.com Wed Apr 1 00:41:57 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:41:57 -0800 Subject: [blml] Announcing (re)doubles References: <49D222DA.2080401@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <17F17DCB9EA84679B80EBB5D56CB4ECC@MARVLAPTOP> \From: "Nigel Guthrie" > 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. Including you, Nigel. Takeout is the normal meaning. e.g. (1H) _X (_1S) _X > If the second double is penalty, then it should be alerted but few > do this. Also wrong. Any good player knows that this penalty double is a weapon against psychs, altho some weakees play the double as takeout. > > 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. With so many players confused about the meaning of doubles, I think the ACBL decision to omit Alerts for them was a good idea. Too much UI, and opponents can ask for an explanation of the auction if they need it. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 1 00:47:13 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:47:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] Suspicious Header In-Reply-To: <49D29724.7030808@consolidated.net> References: <49D29724.7030808@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <000801c9b252$a2bd7f00$e8387d00$@com> OK...I give up! Why is my header suspicious? Same reason as Maradona's. We suspect the Hand of God. From henk at amsterdamned.org Wed Apr 1 01:01:00 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:01:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] List of BLML Abbreviations Message-ID: (Automated, regular posting) Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League [now defunct] BGB Bridge Great Britain BIT Break in Tempo BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn CD Convention Disruption C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CHO Center Hand Opponent [ie partner] CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union EHAA Every Hand an Adventure [a system] F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FNJ Fit-Non-Jump (A non-jump bid in a new suit that implies a fit for partner's suit). FOLOOT Faced Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn FSF Fourth Suit Forcing GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HUM Highly Unusual Method IB Insufficient Bid IBLF International Bridge Laws Forum LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] LHO Left hand Opponent Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn MB Misbid ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side pd Partner PLOOT Play-Out-Of-Turn POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural Penalty PH Passed Hand RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RHO Right Hand Opponent RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SAYC Standard American Yellow Card SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information UPH UnPassed Hand WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: 3m 3C or 3D [minor] 3M 3H or 3S [Major] ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3H! 3H alerted Cards and bids: H3 A card (3 of hearts) 3H A bid (3 hearts. The above may also be found on David Stevenson's Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.htm From henk at amsterdamned.org Wed Apr 1 01:01:01 2009 From: henk at amsterdamned.org (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:01:01 +0200 Subject: [blml] BLML Usage statistics Message-ID: BLML usage statistics for March 2009 Posts From ----- ---- 78 grandaeval (at) tiscali.co.uk 62 richard.hills (at) immi.gov.au 46 rfrick (at) rfrick.info 38 Hermandw (at) skynet.be 23 agot (at) ulb.ac.be 21 svenpran (at) online.no 21 ehaa (at) starpower.net 13 nigelguthrie (at) talktalk.net 12 mfrench1 (at) san.rr.com 11 harald.skjaran (at) gmail.com 9 john (at) asimere.com 7 lapinjatka (at) jldata.fi 7 dalburn (at) btopenworld.com 6 jfusselman (at) gmail.com 6 PeterEidt (at) t-online.de 6 JffEstrsn (at) aol.com 4 swillner (at) nhcc.net 4 ardelm (at) optusnet.com.au 4 Gampas (at) aol.com 3 larry (at) charmschool.orangehome.co.uk 3 jrhind (at) therock.bm 2 mv.phaff (at) quicknet.nl 2 hirsch9000 (at) verizon.net 2 henk (at) ripe.net 2 henk (at) amsterdamned.org 2 geller (at) nifty.com 2 blml (at) bridgescore.de 1 ziffbridge (at) t-online.de 1 t.kooyman (at) worldonline.nl 1 rbusch (at) ozemail.com.au 1 olivier.beauvillain (at) wanadoo.fr 1 nbpfemu (at) bigpond.com 1 mikeamostd (at) btinternet.com 1 karel (at) esatclear.ie 1 jimfox00 (at) cox.net 1 bobpark (at) consolidated.net 1 bbickford (at) charter.net 1 axman22 (at) hotmail.com 1 adam (at) tameware.com From bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Apr 1 01:30:39 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:30:39 -0400 Subject: [blml] Suspicious header Message-ID: <49D2A79F.5080208@consolidated.net> Of my last 4 posting, only one has shown up on the mailing list. When I queried re the one two days ago that has yet to appear, I got this message: Your mail to 'blml' with the subject [Fwd: April Bridge World Editorial] Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message has a suspicious header Could someone perhaps guide me through the process to get a posting through this roadblock? Thanks, --Bob Park From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 1 01:49:55 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:49:55 -0700 Subject: [blml] Suspicious header In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:30:39 EDT." <49D2A79F.5080208@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <200903312338.QAA06718@mailhub.irvine.com> > > Of my last 4 posting, only one has shown up on the mailing list. When I > queried re the one two days ago that has yet to appear, I got this > message: > > > Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > > [Fwd: April Bridge World Editorial] > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Message has a suspicious header > > > Could someone perhaps guide me through the process to get a posting through this roadblock? You could try changing the subject line, although that seems unlikely to do any good. But it could work. Even though the subject line you've shown above looks innocuous to us, a program that tries to filter out spam could have decided that it looked a lot like the subject line from some actual spam messages in some way, that the filter program decided it should treat it as potential spam until a human can look at it. That seems remote, though. Most likely, there's something else funny in one of the other mail headers, and Henk would be the only person who could help you. -- Adam From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 1 02:59:56 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:59:56 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 31/03/2009 01:52:03 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: 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. [paul lamford] So, it would seem that, presumably up to the end of the correction period, the claimant may propose an alternative and different line of play, and the Director must then allow it if it would be irrational not to adopt it. So, someone for example conceding a trick to the queen of trumps when holding eleven of the suit may, at any time up to the end of the correction period, propose the alternative line of play of rejecting the originally stated finesse, and playing the ace and king instead. If the director judges that it would be irrational (for Grattan using the generally accepted meaning of the word; for Herman and some others for this particular player in this particular mindset) not to adopt the alternative line of play, then this "outwith" proposal gets accepted and the new claim is accepted. Or does anyone think that the "outwith" proposal must not contradict the original stated line in any way, and if they think so, on which law are they relying? From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 1 03:34:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:34:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49D1FF1B.1050804@talktalk.net> Message-ID: Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody (1950): "Aristotle was famous for knowing everything. He taught that the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the process of thinking. This is true only of certain persons." Off-list discussion returned to blml, as requested by Nigel Guthrie. Nigel Guthrie: [snip] >>>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. Richard Hills: >>No real point continuing this debate on-list, hence this personal >>response. >> >>But "hugely imperfect" by definition cannot be "more effective". >> >>You yourself noted in your last line that Charlie the Chimp can >>make a cost-nothing Alcatraz Claim online. >> >>E.g. The Chimp is in an online 7NT, which at the conclusion of >>trick ten needs a two-way finesse to make. The Chimp claims, to >>see what happens. The Chimp gains no useful information from >>expert defenders, so reverts to his original 50% guess. But the >>Chimp may gain some useful information from a Timothy the Toucan >>defender or Molly the Mule defender (Timothy disputes the claim >>only when holding the queen; Molly "cleverly" disputes the claim >>only when not holding the queen). >> >>In other words, the face-to-face Law 68D (Play Ceases) was not >>inserted into the Lawbook to give Directors and blmlers hours of >>harmless fun; it was inserted to prevent careless or coffee- >>housing claimers from gaining any undeserved tricks. Nigel Guthrie: >Many BLMLers enter into *private* discussion with me on this and >similar issues. Some agree with me but, as directors, are afraid to >poke their heads above the parapet on BLML Private message to RJBH from a Director, 13th January 2005: >>>>I have been a very active member of BLML for many years but >>>>ceased for many reasons. I sometimes used the list to check my >>>>rulings but was (politely) told there was better places for >>>>that. [snip] >>>>At that time, discussions were interesting and polite and I >>>>answered to many posts. >>>> >>>>Last 3 years, I loose interest. I think that most important dark >>>>parts of the text has been clarified. It is better to wait for >>>>the new texts before going further. >>>> >>>>Last two times I gave an opinion, I read reactions like "once a >>>>time, you do not understand Laws" or "you made a TERRIBLE wrong >>>>ruling". Not very important, but adding to my bad feeling. When I >>>>need information, I now search elsewhere. [snip] >>>>one of the TD that have spent thousands of hours on that subject. >>>>If I feel shy to give an opinion, imagine how most TDs are. >>>> >>>>Anyway, I will go on looking at BLML to wait and see. Nigel Guthrie: >Others, like you, disagree, sometimes advancing interesting and novel >arguments. Richard Hills: The argument in favour of Law 68D (Play Ceases) cannot be described as "novel"; it has been obvious since at least the 1975 edition of the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook. (No doubt Sven Pran or Marvin French will be able to reveal whether an analogous Law was in place in the 1963 edition of the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook.) Nigel Guthrie: >Hence I feel that these topics merit *public* rather than private >discussion. Richard Hills: The current public discussion on blml is about the correct interpretation of the current 2007 Claim Laws. Public discussion about the future 2018 Claim Laws is a tad premature. Nigel Guthrie: >Especially as I waste time contributing to BLML because of the faint >chance that now or later some law-maker may be persuaded to improve >the laws. Richard Hills: Since the abolition of Law 68D (Play Ceases) would fundamentally change the philosophy of the Laws (the principle that the non- offending side should not be damaged by the consequences of an opponent's irregularity, in this case an infraction of the Law 68C requirement for a "clear statement"), arguing that abolition of Law 68D would "improve" the fabulous Lawbook is in my opinion indeed a waste of time. Nigel Guthrie: >I accept that private discussion sometimes highlights a flaw in an >argument of which I was previously unaware. But public arguments are >equally effective in changing my views. We must all be prepared to >modify views in the light of new information. Richard Hills: It seems to me that Nigel's last sentence asserts a relativistic fallacy contrary to Occam's Razor. If one person argues that the Moon is made of rock, and another person argues that the Moon is made of green cheese, the solution is not to reach the conclusion that the Moon is 50% rock and 50% green cheese. Of course, it could be true that the Moon has this 50/50 cheesy rock composition, but such a set of facts would infract Occam's Razor, since it would necessarily assume a world-wide conspiracy by astronomers and selenologists. Nigel Guthrie: >I accept that a secretary-bird may learn to exploit weaknesses of on- >line claim law just as secretary birds exploit the weaknesses in many >face-to-face laws. It is possible to legislate against such ploys, but >unfortunately the rules then become more and more complex. Rather than >risk sophisticated laws. I would rather just allow them. This is a bit >smelly but us fair to everybody, It results in a level playing field. >I would prefer laws that players can understand and that directors can >enforce. Richard Hills: To me Nigel's most recent smelly argument truly smells of green cheese. :-) :-) By the same logic, the complex anti-cheating protocols in the Lawbook could also be abolished, creating a level playing field in which everyone cheats. :-( :-( Nigel Guthrie: >If you play on-line, you learn to welcome claims, even when they are >spurious. After rejecting such a claim, if declarer guesses wrong, you >sometimes achieve an extra undertrick, safely, because you see all >the hand. In any case, you are saved a lot of counting and analysis. Richard Hills: The online Claim Laws are a kludge, a worst-of-all-evils choice due to an online Director usually being tempestively unavailable. At Rubber Bridge a Director is also often tempestively unavailable, but safeguards were inserted. Laws of Contract (Rubber) Bridge 1993, Law 69: When declarer has made a claim or a concession, play is temporarily suspended and declarer must place and leave his hand face up on the table and forthwith make a comprehensive statement as to his proposed plan of play, including the order in which he will play the remaining cards. Declarer's claim or concession is allowed, and the deal is scored accordingly if both defenders agree to it. The claim or concession must be allowed if either defender has permitted any of his remaining cards to be mixed with another player's cards; otherwise, if either defender disputes declarer's claim or concession, it is not allowed. Then, play continues. When his claim or concession is not allowed, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face up on the table. At any time, either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner, and declarer may not impose a penalty for any irregularity committed by a defender whose hand is so faced. The objective of subsequent play is to achieve a result as equitable as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point must be resolved in favor of the defenders. Declarer may not make any play inconsistent with the statement he may have made at the time of his claim or concession. If he failed to make any appropriate statement at that time, his choice of plays is restricted thereby: (a) if declarer made no relevant statement, he may not finesse* in any suit unless an opponent failed to follow in that suit before the claim or concession or would subsequently fail to follow in that suit on any conceivable sequence of plays. (b) if declarer may have been unaware at the time of his claim or concession that a trump remained in a defender's hand, either defender may require him to draw or not to draw the outstanding trump. (c) if declarer did not, in his statement, mention an unusual plan of play, he may adopt only a routine line of play. If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited under this Law, either defender may accept the play or, provided neither defender has subsequently played, require declarer to withdraw the card so played and substitute another that conforms to his obligations. *For these purposes, a finesse is a play the success of which depends on finding one defender rather than the other with or without a particular card. 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 svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 1 08:09:36 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:09:36 +0200 Subject: [blml] Suspicious Header - the common reason is that In-Reply-To: <49D29724.7030808@consolidated.net> References: <49D29724.7030808@consolidated.net> Message-ID: <000001c9b290$6f3f1650$4dbd42f0$@no> you have written your post in html or rich text format. Make sure that your posts are always written in "plain text" Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Robert Park > Sent: 1. april 2009 00:20 > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [blml] Suspicious Header > > OK...I give up! Why is my header suspicious? > --Bob Park > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 1 08:17:39 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:17:39 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000101c9b291$8f470c90$add525b0$@no> Frankly I believe this discussion has gone off the tracks. What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made his claim statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line of play that they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is neither in conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be "irrational". Regards Sven > -----Original Message----- > From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- > bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > Sent: 1. april 2009 03:00 > To: blml at amsterdamned.org > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > > In a message dated 31/03/2009 01:52:03 GMT Standard Time, > grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > 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. > > [paul lamford] So, it would seem that, presumably up to the end of the > correction period, the claimant may propose an alternative and different line of > play, and the Director must then allow it if it would be irrational not to > adopt it. So, someone for example conceding a trick to the queen of trumps when > holding eleven of the suit may, at any time up to the end of the correction > period, propose the alternative line of play of rejecting the originally stated > finesse, and playing the ace and king instead. If the director judges that > it would be irrational (for Grattan using the generally accepted meaning of > the word; for Herman and some others for this particular player in this > particular mindset) not to adopt the alternative line of play, then this "outwith" > proposal gets accepted and the new claim is accepted. Or does anyone think > that the "outwith" proposal must not contradict the original stated line in any > way, and if they think so, on which law are they relying? > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 08:20:41 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 08:20:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] Announcing (re)doubles In-Reply-To: <17F17DCB9EA84679B80EBB5D56CB4ECC@MARVLAPTOP> References: <49D222DA.2080401@talktalk.net> <17F17DCB9EA84679B80EBB5D56CB4ECC@MARVLAPTOP> Message-ID: 2009/4/1 Marvin L French : > > \From: "Nigel Guthrie" > 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. > > Including ?you, Nigel. Takeout is the normal meaning. Read the wording of the regulation, if Nigel got that right, it says nothing about normal/non-normal. It states that a takeout double of natural suit bids are non-alertable. The transfer completion is not a natural bid, thus a takeout double would be alertable, regardless of this being the normal meaning. > > ?e.g. (1H) _X ?(_1S) _X > >> If the second double is penalty, then it should be alerted but few >> do this. > > Also wrong. Any good player knows that this penalty double is a > weapon against psychs, altho some weakees play the double as > takeout. Same again. A penalty double of an artificial bid is non-alertable. But 1S is natural, thus the double is alertable according to the regulation. Seems to me you're confusing ACBL alert regulations with EBU alert regulations. -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran >> >> 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. > > With so many players confused about the meaning of doubles, I think > the ACBL decision to omit Alerts for them was a good idea. Too much > UI, and opponents can ask for an explanation of the auction if they > need 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 richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 1 08:37:08 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:37:08 +1100 Subject: [blml] Class of player [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: >+=+ 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? * * * In such an important event, against such key opponents, the best strategy would be to make the call mandated by your mutually agreed partnership methods. So Rebattu (Netherlands) opened 1S, duly alerted by his partner Maas. Jeff Rubens, The Bridge World, November 1982, page 11: "That one-spade opening was _not_ a psychic. Unlike the majority of pairs in the tournament, Maas-Rebattu used highly non-standard methods (to put it mildly). Obviously, they did very well with them. Would they have done as well had the World Bridge Federation required greater advanced notice of unusual methods, giving pairs an opportunity to devise defenses, or at least gain familiarity? I don't know. Neither does anyone else. But, unquestionably, there will be many who will think they might not have done as well if the surprise value were lacking. The W.B.F. would be well advised to consider appropriate legislation for this reason alone. And there are also more basic reasons." * * * Welsley Murbach, The Bridge World, November 1982, page 2: ".....the powers-that-be came around and asked about our methods. Light openers! We were informed we couldn't play ligh openers, so we invoked the name of _the_ light opener, Barry Crane. This brought them up short. Finally, they grudgingly allowed us to continue -- but at each table we had to announce that we employed light openers. I have long felt there are two sets of rules -- one for the top players and one for the rest of us. I venture to say no director in the last 30 years has told Crane he can not open light." Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World, November 1982, page 2: "We certainly hope no director has tried to teach Barry Crane, or anyone else, when to open the bidding! That would be horribly wrong, just as the attempt to intimidate you was horribly wrong." Horribly wrong 2007 Law 40B1(a): "In its discretion the Regulating Authority may designate certain partnership understandings as 'special partnership understandings'. A special partnership understanding is one whose meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the tournament." Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World, November 1982, page 2: "Both experts and journeymen, when given an unfair ruling, tend to think things are better for the other group. However, the primary objective is to strive for _just_ rulings for everyone, not merely equality. It would not be satisfactory if Barry Crane were _illegally_ restricted along with everyone else." Horribly unfair 2007 Law 40B2(a), first sentence: "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding." Edgar Kaplan, The Bridge World, November 1982, page 2: "In contrast, we see nothing wrong (quite the opposite, in fact) with your being required to explain your methods in advance. Opponents have as much right to advance information about unusual treatments as you have to use them." Quite the opposite 2007 Law 40A1(b), first sentence: "Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them." 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 henk at ripe.net Wed Apr 1 07:59:14 2009 From: henk at ripe.net (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:59:14 +0200 Subject: [blml] Suspicious header In-Reply-To: <200903312338.QAA06718@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200903312338.QAA06718@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: <49D302B2.3080703@ripe.net> Adam Beneschan wrote: >> Of my last 4 posting, only one has shown up on the mailing list. When I >> queried re the one two days ago that has yet to appear, I got this >> message: >> >> >> Your mail to 'blml' with the subject >> >> [Fwd: April Bridge World Editorial] >> >> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. >> >> The reason it is being held: >> >> Message has a suspicious header >> >> >> Could someone perhaps guide me through the process to get a posting through this roadblock? You wait between 10 minutes and a few days for the moderator to read your posting, decide that it is about bridge and approve it. If it isn't about bridge, then the post will removed. > That seems remote, though. Most likely, there's something else funny > in one of the other mail headers, and Henk would be the only person > who could help you. First: the "subject:" line is only one of the headers, there are a lot more: "from:", "to:" and "date:" are the most common ones, but there are also lots that a user will never see. The most common course for this message to appear is that your posting is in HTML format. Some mailers mistakenly post in HTML by default, switch it off. HTML can be abused by hackers and the spam filters are a bit sensitive to this. And even if you don't use HTML format yourself, a mail to which you replied can be in HTML format. If you think that is the case, don't use the reply button but start with a fresh new mail. Finally, I'm about to move the list to a new server, with more recent software, so I don't want to spend too much time on this problem. 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 bobpark at consolidated.net Wed Apr 1 00:03:17 2009 From: bobpark at consolidated.net (Robert Park) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:03:17 -0400 Subject: [blml] [Fwd: April Bridge World Editorial] Message-ID: <49D29325.1040308@consolidated.net> I submitted the following posting 2 days ago. It has not yet appeared on BLML. Am I doing something wrong? --Bob Park -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Robert Park Subject: April Bridge World Editorial Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 13:06:27 -0400 Size: 1527 Url: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090331/c0cea3a0/attachment.eml From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Wed Apr 1 09:32:14 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 18:32:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] basic blml principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Will Cuppy, The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody (1950): "Egyptologists say they have no idea what Khufu was doing when he was not building pyramids, since he left no inscriptions describing his daily activities, and they would give a good deal to know. Then they say he had six wives and a harem full of concubines. They do not seem to make the connection, but you get it and I get it. We do not need any hieroglyphics to inform us that Khufu dropped around occasionally to see how things were getting along and to tell the ladies how many cubic yards of limestone he had laid that afternoon." Private message to RJBH from a Director, 13th January 2005: >I have been a very active member of BLML for many years but >ceased for many reasons. I sometimes used the list to check my >rulings but was (politely) told there was better places for >that. [snip] >At that time, discussions were interesting and polite and I >answered to many posts. > >Last 3 years, I lose interest. [snip] Richard Hills: Discussions on blml are more polite in recent weeks. The entry-shift squeeze posted by David Burn was interesting. However it seems to me that, over the past half-dozen years, some prolific posters to blml have a "thing" about claims, with endless drivel on claims by a variety of The Usual Suspects erupting every few months on blml, thus causing me to lose interest. After some discussion of the 2008 ACBL Presidential election, this list adopted a Self-Denying Ordinance to voluntarily eschew further discussion of American politics Perhaps blml could also adopt a Self-Denying Ordinance to voluntarily discuss only Laws 1 to 67 and 72 to 93? After all, in the real world claims are both desirable and also easily resolved. For example, in the current issue of the ABF Newsletter, Laurie Kelso clearly and concisely wrote: The aftermath of a claim sometimes generates quite a lot of post-hand discussion by the players at the table, and occasionally even some angst. A claim is basically a suggestion that play be curtailed (in other words, the claimer should believe that what remains of the play is automatic and obvious). Any statement by a player, that he will win or lose a number of the remaining tricks, constitutes a claim (and/or a concession). Other actions, such as the deliberate facing of a hand, may also be considered a claim. Claims are not the sole province of declarer: defenders may also claim. However, their partners sometimes turn up with unexpected assets, which can be problematic. Additionally, a defender has the right to object to his partner conceding, but then unauthorised information restrictions would apply, especially in regard to any faced cards. An objection by any player requires the presence of the director. Play ceases after a claim is made - with no exceptions (Law 68D). So when someone at the table says: "Oh, let's play it out", it is illegal to continue to play. It now becomes the task of the opponents, to either agree to the claim, in which case the score is entered and verified, or to contest the claim, in which case the director must be called. If you are the claimer, and want to make a pain-free claim, then you need to make "a clear statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, of the line of play or defence through which (you propose) to win the tricks claimed" (Law 68C). In a suit contract it is wise to specifically mention the trump position, e.g. "all the trumps having been drawn", or "drawing one more round of trumps". Then the opponents (as well as the director, if the claim is contested) will know that you have not forgotten where they are. The director's role when a player queries the validity of a claim, is to adjudicate the result as equitably as possible to both sides. He is, however, required to award any "doubtful" trick to the non-claiming side. The wisest strategy, until he arrives, is to say very little, regardless of the reactions of declarer or dummy. It is also better not to move any cards, leaving the played cards separate from those remaining in your hand. The director normally requires the claimer to repeat, and if necessary, elaborate on any clarification statement. He then hears the opponents' objections to the claim, before instructing the players to place their remaining cards face up on the table. Basing his analysis of the position upon the statements of declarer and the opponents, the director then decides if there is any doubt as to the outcome of the hand. In situations where the claimer has not stipulated the order in which he intended to play the remaining cards, the director will have to consider all possible "normal" lines of play (including those which one might consider inferior or even careless). Some additional issues the director might need to consider are: * Were there any trumps outstanding and is it possible that the claimer was unaware of their existence? * Could a trick be lost to a remaining trump? * Does the claim involve an unstated line of play (such as a finesse) that is dependent upon finding a pertinent card in only one of the opponents' hands? The overriding requirement should always be an equitable result, and hence the most important question is simply: If the claimer had played the hand out, is there any doubt that he would have been successful? When there is no real doubt, the claim is sustained. If doubt exists, then the opponents may be entitled to one or more of the tricks claimed. Having read this, you might now feel that you will only claim when it is totally obvious, or not at all. However, keep in mind that Law 74B4 says, "As a matter of courtesy, a player should refrain from prolonging play unnecessarily (as in playing on although he knows that all the tricks are surely his)". 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 Wed Apr 1 10:13:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:13:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: <31F1C436-1C85-4097-A127-1206D2D8B12E@starpower.net> References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> <31F1C436-1C85-4097-A127-1206D2D8B12E@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49D32215.4060606@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > Right. Given the situation, an action is either rational or > irrational regardless of the state of the person who performed it -- > an irrational act may be the product of irrational thinking, or may > be the product of perfectly rational thinking based on false > information. Asking whether a particular action is or is not > "rational within the claimer's frame of mind" is operationally > meaningless. There's no such thing as a person who is irrational in > his own mind. > My point exactly - all actions are rational, but perhaps based on false information. So in order to determine whether an action would be rational, we need to know on what basis the action is taken. "within the claimer's frame of mind" was my way of saying "based on the claimer's information". Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 1 10:18:31 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:18:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be> <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be> Grattan, please: Grattan wrote: > >>> > +=+ It is a non-sequitur. There is nothing in the law > that stops the Director following a line proposed by > the claimer because it is irrational. Herman stands > the law upon its head, and himself with it. Irrational > plays are *not* excluded by law. What Law 70E1 > does is to stop the Director disallowing a claimer's > supplementarily proposed play if not to make that > play would be irrational. > ~ G ~ +=+ Grattan, read the above again: "stop the director dissallowing a play if not to make that play would be irrational". Count the negatives: "stop" "dis" "not": 3 Now read the other sentence: "Irrational plays are excluded by law" Count the negatives : "ex": 1 These two sentences are equal! Irrational plays, even within the claim statement, are excluded by L70E. Of course I have often repeated that no player can give irrational plays in his claim statement, they are always rational to him, within his knowledge. But they can become irrational, and then they are to be disregarded as per L70E. Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding my perfectly logical reasonings? Herman. > > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From JffEstrsn at aol.com Wed Apr 1 10:37:31 2009 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:37:31 +0200 Subject: [blml] negativitiy Message-ID: <49D327CB.7020507@aol.com> I'm not really certain and suppose it is irrelevant anyway but since when is "irrational" a grammatical negative? JE From PeterEidt at t-online.de Wed Apr 1 11:15:03 2009 From: PeterEidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:15:03 +0200 Subject: [blml] =?iso-8859-15?q?basic_claiming_principles=3F?= In-Reply-To: <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be> <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1LowXH-1wDfgO0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> From: Herman De Wael > Grattan, please: > > Grattan wrote: > > > > > > > > +=+ 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 ~ ?+=+ > > Grattan, read the above again: > > "stop the director dissallowing a play if not to make that play would > be irrational". > > Count the negatives: "stop" "dis" "not": 3 > > Now read the other sentence: > > "Irrational plays are excluded by law" > > Count the negatives : "ex": 1 > > These two sentences are equal! > > Irrational plays, even within the claim statement, are excluded by > L70E. > > Of course I have often repeated that no player can give irrational > plays in his claim statement, they are always rational to him, within > his knowledge. But they can become irrational, and then they are to be > disregarded as per L70E. > > Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding my perfectly > logical reasonings? Although I'm not Grattan, I'm still challenged by another post and I owe you an answer: I'm not on your side. I'll give it another try. Not only the heading of Law 70E but also the first sentence of it clearly marks that this law will only be used, if the claimer proposes a (new, unstated) line not contained in his original statement (if any). Regarding the part if "irrationality" you may shorten that law to "1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play [...] unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational." Law 70E does _not_ exclude irrational plays within the claim statement, as you claimed (;-)) above. Perhaps you might see now that your logical reasonings are whatever but not logical. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 1 11:41:38 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:41:38 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: Message-ID: <00db01c9b2b0$848c1150$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > Or does anyone think that the "outwith" proposal > must not contradict the original stated line in any > way, and if they think so, on which law are they > relying? > +=+ The Director must consider whether Law 70D1 applies. +=+ From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 1 11:59:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:59:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <000101c9b291$8f470c90$add525b0$@no> Message-ID: <00dc01c9b2b0$84cebfa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 7:17 AM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > Frankly I believe this discussion has gone off the tracks. > > What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made his claim > statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line of play > that > they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is neither in > conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be > "irrational". > > Regards Sven > +=+ That is to say opponents may include it in their objections to the claim. The alternative they point to must be a 'normal' line of play. ~ G ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 1 11:58:56 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 05:58:56 EDT Subject: [blml] basic blml principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: In a message dated 01/04/2009 08:33:10 GMT Standard Time, richard.hills at immi.gov.au writes: The overriding requirement should always be an equitable result, and hence the most important question is simply: If the claimer had played the hand out, is there any doubt that he would have been successful? [paul lamford] Your long and interesting summary of how you interpret the claim laws breaks down with the above paragraph; as I understand it the WBFLC minute has already stipulated that if part of the claim includes an infraction which the opponents would be allowed to accept to their benefit under the Laws, their rights to accept the infraction are taken from them, even if the player would be extremely likely to have gone down if the hand had been played out. So much for your belief that "the philosophy of the Laws [is] the principle that the non-offending side should not be damaged by the consequences of an opponent's irregularity" You continue: [Richard Hills] In situations where the claimer has not stipulated the order in which he intended to play the remaining cards, the director will have to consider all possible "normal" lines of play (including those which one might consider inferior or even careless). [paul lamford] This does not cover situations where the claimant either corrects an inadequate claim or makes a further statement inconsistent with the wording of the earlier claim. I cited an example: AKQJx Ax AKQ AKQ opposite xxxx x xxxx xxxx where declarer claims, in 7S on a heart lead which he wins, stating "drawing trumps in four rounds if necessary". How does one rule if declarer, shortly afterwards, adds "ruffing a heart along the way if trumps are 4-0"?. 70E1, snipped, states: *The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play unless failure to adopt that line of play would be irrational.* There is a clear implication that the Director WILL accept an unstated line of play if that is the only rational one. There is no indication that this cannot change the original statement, nor that it has to be immediate, nor even within a short space of time. Quizmaster: Which chocolate bar is named after the Roman God of War? Egghead: Aero, er ... Ares, er ... Mars Quizmaster: Sorry I have to accept your first answer. The only test in the Laws is of the line's rationality. And the idea that the original statement cannot be changed even if it is irrational is an undesirable encouragement to a silent claim, followed by dumb insolence when challenged by the TD. And as for your proposal that BLML abstain from discussion of the claim laws, there is an easy remedy there; those that do not find them interesting can ignore that particular thread, and those that do can reply. From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 1 12:05:09 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:05:09 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 01/04/2009 10:59:25 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: +=+ The Director must consider whether Law 70D1 applies. +=+ I already accept that normal lines which fail are imposed upon the inaccurate claimant. But it appeared to me that you argued that there was no test for normality on the claimant's original statement. Or are you saying there is a time limit on the substitution of an alternative normal line? From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 1 12:36:13 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:36:13 +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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D21753.1050001@skynet.be><000101c9b204$9d801500$d8803f00$@com> <49D22AED.9030005@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <00f901c9b2b5$afaaf090$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott (Quote) > 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? > +=+ The question whether any cretin, or any player, would make a play has no bearing on its rationality. Additionally, the only law raising the question of irrationality is not called upon in the given circumstannces. But if a claim of ten tricks were made with only nine in view, and the claimer were then to supplement his original statement with a proposal to duck the first trick, Law 70E1 then provides that the Director may allow the proposal if he first rules that it would be irrational not to duck. ~ G ~ +=+ From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 1 12:15:01 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:15:01 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 01/04/2009 11:00:22 GMT Standard Time, grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made his claim > statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line of play > that > they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is neither in > conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be > "irrational". > > Regards Sven > +=+ That is to say opponents may include it in their objections to the claim. The alternative they point to must be a 'normal' line of play. ~ G ~ +=+ Both 70D1 and 70E1 begin: "The director shall not accept from claimer". Clearly he can accept an objection from the opponents without restriction. But both 70D1 and 70E1 imply the converse which is: "The director will accept from claimer an unstated successful line of play if there is no alternative normal line of play that is less successful." Now if this had meant "unstated similar" or "line of play consistent with the wording of the original claim" it would say so. So it doesn't mean that. And if it had intended "without pause for thought" it would say so. The only test is normality. There is a set of all claims, and two subsets, those that have an alternative normal line of play that is unsuccessful, and those that don't. It is clear these comprise all claims. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090401/e67f770d/attachment.htm From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 1 12:44:00 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:44:00 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <00dc01c9b2b0$84cebfa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <000101c9b291$8f470c90$add525b0$@no> <00dc01c9b2b0$84cebfa0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <001a01c9b2b6$c4b07360$4e115a20$@no> On Behalf Of Grattan > From: "Sven Pran" > > Frankly I believe this discussion has gone off the tracks. > > > > What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made his claim > > statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line of play > > that > > they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is neither in > > conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be > > "irrational". > > > > Regards Sven > > > +=+ That is to say opponents may include it in their objections > to the claim. The alternative they point to must be a 'normal' > line of play. > ~ G ~ +=+ Yes, that is my understanding. Of course it is the Director (and in case AC) that will make the actual ruling. (And the Director or AC may not exclude any legal line of play described by the claimer with his claim however "irrational" such line of play might be judged.) Regards Sven From Gampas at aol.com Wed Apr 1 12:50:35 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 06:50:35 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 01/04/2009 11:44:39 GMT Standard Time, svenpran at online.no writes: And the Director or AC may not exclude any legal line of play described by the claimer with his claim however "irrational" such line of play might be judged. [paul lamford] Which law states this? From posundelin at yahoo.se Wed Apr 1 12:53:04 2009 From: posundelin at yahoo.se (PO Sundelin) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:53:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [blml] A revoke case study Message-ID: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Dummy has AQT83, Q32, -, 2 J4,T8,-,65432,- ? Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are?drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. ? Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West?discards a club. Declarer continues with the four?and West this time follows with?the two. Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding?originally?was K4. ? The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, contract just made. However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the revoke. ? Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which I think can?t be appealed? __________________________________________________________ Ta semester! - s?k efter resor hos Kelkoo. J?mf?r pris p? flygbiljetter och hotellrum h?r: http://www.kelkoo.se/c-169901-resor-biljetter.html?partnerId=96914052 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.amsterdamned.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20090401/be97a146/attachment-0001.htm From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Wed Apr 1 13:25:13 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:25:13 +0200 Subject: [blml] A revoke case study In-Reply-To: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2009/4/1 PO Sundelin : > Dummy has > AQT83, Q32, -, 2 > J4,T8,-,65432,- > > Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are?drawn, > clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. > > Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West?discards a club. > Declarer continues with the four?and West this time follows with?the two. > Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won > by West?s king. West?s spade holding?originally?was K4. If I follow you correctly, PO, west discarded a club on the spade jack, which was ducked and won the trick, and followed with the duce when declarer led the S4 from hand next. One can discuss wether or not declarer fooled himself, but that's another matter. Obviously, if west had covered the SJ, declarer would have a discard for one heart only, making ten tricks. Easts S9, holding 9765, will be a stopper. So I'd not give declarer more than his ten tricks. To rule that west would duck the SJ would be too harsh for me. > > The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did > win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, > contract just made. > However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a > case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, > but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without > the revoke. > > Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? > Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law > which I think can?t be appealed? > ________________________________ > G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. > S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Apr 1 13:26:49 2009 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (Alain Gottcheiner) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:26:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] A revoke case study In-Reply-To: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49D34F79.7020905@ulb.ac.be> PO Sundelin a ?crit : > Dummy has > AQT83, Q32, -, 2 > J4,T8,-,65432,- > > Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps > are drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. > > Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a > club. Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows > with the two. > Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which > is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K4. > > The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, > but did win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for > declarer, contract just made. > However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such > a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two > overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never > been possible without the revoke. > > Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? > Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of > law which I think can?t be appealed? > AG : I don't see this as a safety play, since after losing the spade you still have to lose a heart for 1 down (you mentioned two lost tricks already). But assume declarer didn't lose a trick yet. a) the result should be corrected, perhaps to two overtricks, perhaps to a weighted score. This is surely one of those cases where the revoke changed declarer's line of play for worse. b) as it contains an element of judgment about the play (is it probable that the revoke had cost more than one trick ?) rather than law or table facts, surely it is subject to appeal. Best regards Alain From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 1 13:40:05 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:40:05 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <1LowXH-1wDfgO0@fwd10.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$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be> <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be> <1LowXH-1wDfgO0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> Message-ID: <49D35295.9020403@skynet.be> Hello Peter, Peter Eidt wrote: > From: Herman De Wael >> Grattan, please: >> >> Grattan wrote: >>> +=+ 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 ~ +=+ >> Grattan, read the above again: >> >> "stop the director dissallowing a play if not to make that play would >> be irrational". >> >> Count the negatives: "stop" "dis" "not": 3 >> >> Now read the other sentence: >> >> "Irrational plays are excluded by law" >> >> Count the negatives : "ex": 1 >> >> These two sentences are equal! >> >> Irrational plays, even within the claim statement, are excluded by >> L70E. >> >> Of course I have often repeated that no player can give irrational >> plays in his claim statement, they are always rational to him, within >> his knowledge. But they can become irrational, and then they are to be >> disregarded as per L70E. >> >> Why do you have so much difficulty in understanding my perfectly >> logical reasonings? > > Although I'm not Grattan, I'm still challenged by another > post and I owe you an answer: I'm not on your side. > > I'll give it another try. > Not only the heading of Law 70E but also the first > sentence of it clearly marks that this law will only > be used, if the claimer proposes a (new, unstated) > line not contained in his original statement (if any). > I understand that, but I propose the following: whenever a claimer has issued a claim statement which includes an irrational line (irrational in my definition, here still, please) then it will be completely natural for him to propose an alternate line. So while this law only comes into effect when he does propose such a line, it will, for the sake of our discussion, always come into effect since claimers will always propose an alternate line. If they don't (perhaps because there is none), we will not be there. > Regarding the part if "irrationality" you may shorten > that law to > "1. The Director shall not accept from claimer any > unstated line of play [...] unless failure to adopt that > line of play would be irrational." > > Law 70E does _not_ exclude irrational plays within > the claim statement, as you claimed (;-)) above. > But when they are included, they shall not followed, since, by L70E, director shall accept the proposed alternative. > Perhaps you might see now that your logical > reasonings are whatever but not logical. > Au contraire, mon cher. My reasonings are very logical. Maybe I need to spell out a few intermediate steps for you to see that they are. But they are quite logical. If a claimer states a line which becomes irrational (it cannot be irrational from the very start, because claimer would not issue an irrational claim - his claim will always be considered rational within his knowledge), then he cannot fail to propose an alternate line. Since the original line is irrational, it would be irrational to adopt it, and so also irrational to not adopt the alternative. By L70E, the director will not be forced to not accept it, so he will accept it (I presume you are not discussing that double negative - if you do, then the WBF has done a bad job in writing double negatives without meaning a positive). If the Director accepts the alternative line, then the original (irrational) line is not to be followed. Allow me to shorten all this to "irrational lines will not be followed". Logical or not? PS: While writing this, I did think about one problem. What if there are two alternate lines. Suppose they are both successful (or we would not be here). Can we still adopt the double negative reasoning? Indeed, when we say "not to adopt the line would be irrational" when there are two lines then it is at the same time not irrational to not play the first line AND not irrational to not play the second (while it remains irrational to play the stated line). I believe we can use the logical step though, since the two lines can be merged into one ("anything but playing ...") and it would still be irrational not to adopt the merged line. Consider that whenever we are talking about "lines", every "line" is a conglomerate of more than one "line". The line of "playing AK" is actually two lines : "first the ace, then the king" and "first the king, then the ace". If we accept "playing AK" as an alternative, then we must accept "playing either hearts or spades" as well, and also "playing anything but the D7". > Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Wed Apr 1 13:42:49 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 13:42:49 +0200 Subject: [blml] negativitiy In-Reply-To: <49D327CB.7020507@aol.com> References: <49D327CB.7020507@aol.com> Message-ID: <49D35339.7000000@skynet.be> Jeff Easterson wrote: > I'm not really certain and suppose it is irrelevant anyway but since > when is "irrational" a grammatical negative? JE > Since it can be replaced by "not rational". Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Wed Apr 1 13:55:12 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:55:12 +0100 Subject: [blml] A revoke case study In-Reply-To: <49D34F79.7020905@ulb.ac.be> References: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <49D34F79.7020905@ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: <000901c9b2c0$b7490250$25db06f0$@com> [PO] Dummy has AQT83, Q32, -, 2 J4,T8,-,65432,- Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are drawn, clubs have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a club. Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows with the two. Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K2. The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did win a trick later so it seems L64A covers that. One trick for declarer, contract just made. However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the revoke. Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which I think can?t be appealed? [AG] I don't see this as a safety play, since after losing the spade you still have to lose a heart for 1 down (you mentioned two lost tricks already). [DALB] By "safety play", PO means that once West has followed to the second round of spades, declarer can guard against West's having the king by going up with the ace and running the queen for a heart discard; if West wins, he will have to give the trick back. If East has the king and has ducked it, then going up with the ace is also a safety play for the contract (declarer loses two heart tricks for down one, but gets a trick for the revoke). Finessing on the second round of spades goes down one if East has ducked (losing a spade and two hearts less one trick for the revoke). Whether or not the score should be adjusted to restore equity is not altogether clear. If West had known exactly what he had in spades, he would probably have covered the jack (down one, so no adjustment needed). But if he thought he had the singleton two, or would not have covered the jack from K2, he would have followed with the two on the first round (two overtricks, so an adjustment needed). My view is that one does not take into account such remote possibilities as those, and I would not adjust under Law 64C. Any ruling at all may be appealed (Law 92). "In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. (The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he change such a ruling.)" (Law 93). David Burn London, England From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 1 14:34:49 2009 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (Roger Pewick) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 07:34:49 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000101c9b291$8f470c90$add525b0$@no> References: <000101c9b291$8f470c90$add525b0$@no> Message-ID: -------------------------------------------------- From: "Sven Pran" Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 01:17 To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > Frankly I believe this discussion has gone off the tracks. > > What Law 70 essentially says is that once the claimer has made his claim > statement (if any), opponents can request him to apply any line of play > that > they find beneficial to them provided such line of play is neither in > conflict with the original claim statement nor is judged to be > "irrational". > > Regards Sven I notice from a close reading of law that it says [rephrased]: The procedure for ruling on a contested claim is specified exclusively by 70 B through E ["The Director [70A] proceeds as follows." Implying that B thru E define what "the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer" means] B1 provides that TD collects a clarification but does not provide instructions for what is to be done with it. B2 provides that TD collects objections but does not provide instructions for what is to be done with them. D1 & E1 gives conditions for when the TD is to not accept post facto clarification; also, does not provide for TD to accept post facto clarifications. [making mute the need for instructions for what is to be done with accepted post facto clarifications.] Notably the only provision for affecting the number of tricks lies in 70C. And notably, there is no provision for the opponents to request claimer to do anything. regards roger pewick >> -----Original Message----- >> From: blml-bounces at amsterdamned.org [mailto:blml- >> bounces at amsterdamned.org] On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com >> Sent: 1. april 2009 03:00 >> To: blml at amsterdamned.org >> Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? >> >> In a message dated 31/03/2009 01:52:03 GMT Standard Time, >> grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: >> >> 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. >> >> [paul lamford] So, it would seem that, presumably up to the end of the >> correction period, the claimant may propose an alternative and different > line of >> play, and the Director must then allow it if it would be irrational not >> to >> adopt it. So, someone for example conceding a trick to the queen of > trumps when >> holding eleven of the suit may, at any time up to the end of the > correction >> period, propose the alternative line of play of rejecting the originally > stated >> finesse, and playing the ace and king instead. If the director judges > that >> it would be irrational (for Grattan using the generally accepted meaning > of >> the word; for Herman and some others for this particular player in this >> particular mindset) not to adopt the alternative line of play, then this > "outwith" >> proposal gets accepted and the new claim is accepted. Or does anyone > think >> that the "outwith" proposal must not contradict the original stated line > in any >> way, and if they think so, on which law are they relying? From svenpran at online.no Wed Apr 1 15:03:17 2009 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 15:03:17 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002e01c9b2ca$399984b0$accc8e10$@no> On Behalf Of Gampas at aol.com > +=+ That is to say opponents may include it in their objections ? ? ? ? to the claim. The alternative they point to must be a 'normal' ? ? ? ? line of play. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ~ G ~?? +=+ Both 70D1 and 70E1 begin: "The director shall not accept from claimer". Clearly?he can accept an objection from the opponents without restriction. But both 70D1 and 70E1 imply the converse which is: ? "The director will accept from claimer an unstated successful line of play if there is no alternative normal line of play that is less successful." ? Now if this had meant "unstated similar" or "line of play consistent with the wording of the original claim" it would say so. So it doesn't mean that. And if it had intended "without pause for thought" it would say so. The only test is normality. ? There is a set of all claims, and two subsets, those that have an alternative normal line of play that is unsuccessful, and those that don't. It is clear these comprise all claims. Sven: I feel confused and just can't grasp what you want to state. Once a claim is made, with or without a claim statement, and opponents challenge this claim then Law 70 comes into force. >From now on the Director shall only accept a revised claim statement from the claimer if this revised statement is wholly embodied within the original claim statement and no other "natural" line of play less successful to him exists that is also embodied within the original claim statement. Or in other words: The claimer may not with his revised claim statement exclude a line of play less successful to him that was possible according to his original claim statement unless this line of play is "not normal". Sven From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 15:09:31 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:09:31 -0400 Subject: [blml] irrational stated lines of play In-Reply-To: References: <002001c9ad2c$beb3f200$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49CC7E44.9080001@skynet.be> <49CC9231.9010906@skynet.be> <49CCC1E0.4000104@skynet.be> <49CD1AA7.5030200@skynet.be> <001901c9af46$18cd77a0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > 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. ...either (a) an ambiguity is encountered (multiple lines of play consistent with the claim statement are available), or (b) following an unambiguously stated line would require an illegal play. Loosely speaking. Even when the statement does fall into ambiguity, we continue to "follow" it in the sense that it constrains the lines of play we evaluate to consistent ones. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 15:17:43 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:17:43 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80A048E7-8F22-4CA0-B9D9-5AA72E54EFE9@starpower.net> On Mar 29, 2009, at 5:00 AM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 27/03/2009 14:40:49 GMT Standard Time, > blml at bridgescore.de writes: > >> 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. > > [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, No, he is not... > 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. ...because these conditions, from L70E1, explicitly apply only to "any unstated line of play". This finesse for the queen was, obviously, not "unstated". > 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. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 15:35:58 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:35:58 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 29, 2009, at 6:04 AM, 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? 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. Whether or not you allow the heart ruff, legally speaking, has nothing to do with rationality or irrationality. You may "discount the exact wording of the claimant's statement" not because it is irrational, but because it is carelessly phrased; if you decide that it was the claimer's intention to ruff the heart all along, even with trumps 4-0, you "allow" him to follow his intention rather than the literal words of his statement. This authority derives from L70A; you are ruling, in effect, that whether he intended to ruff the heart is not a "doubtful point". If you do not find that he "intended" (i.e. was aware of the necessity, at the time of the claim) to ruff the heart along the way if trumps showed 4-0, down he goes, rational or not. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 15:56:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 09:56:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000001c9b059$1001ef70$3005ce50$@no> References: <000001c9b059$1001ef70$3005ce50$@no> Message-ID: <24BCC687-7619-41AA-8A97-0495CFA90A73@starpower.net> On Mar 29, 2009, at 6:28 AM, Sven Pran wrote: > 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. >> >> [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!) You need not address whether declarer would have noticed East showing out or what he might actually do in consequence. L70E1 requires only that East show out on any line consistent with the claim statement (not at issue here, as declarer has said he will start with the ace); that he will notice it and cover West's card accordingly is, in effect, to be presumed. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From jrhind at therock.bm Wed Apr 1 14:59:10 2009 From: jrhind at therock.bm (Jack Rhind) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:59:10 -0300 Subject: [blml] A revoke case study In-Reply-To: <694796.18857.qm@web23704.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi folks, P.O., if I understand this correctly, the spade position was AQT83 K2 9xxx J4 If this is correct then the one trick penalty to E/W is sufficient to restore equity since E/W had a natural spade trick if West covers the J. Jack On 4/1/09 7:53 AM, "PO Sundelin" wrote: > Dummy has > AQT83, Q32, -, 2 > J4,T8,-,65432,- > > Contract is 4 diamonds. Declarer has lost two tricks. Trumps are drawn, clubs > have been ruffed, hearts and spades are untouched. > > Declarer plays the spade jack, winning the trick, West discards a club. > Declarer continues with the four and West this time follows with the two. > Declarer wins the ace and discards a heart on the spade queen, which is won by > West?s king. West?s spade holding originally was K4. > > The revoke is established. The revoker didn?t win the revoke trick, but did > win a trick later so it seems ?64A covers that. One trick for declarer, > contract just made. > However, 64C gives the TD the right to correct the score. Is this such a case? > Of course declarer could have finessed again making two overtricks, but the > revoke gave him a safety play, which had never been possible without the > revoke. > > Question A: Should the result be corrected, and if so, to what? > Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter of law which > I think can?t be appealed? > > > > G?r det l?ngsamt? Skaffa dig en snabbare bredbandsuppkoppling. > S?k och j?mf?r priser hos Kelkoo. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20090401/d354bc17/attachment.htm From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 16:39:00 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 10:39:00 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2009, at 7:55 PM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Gratttan Endicott] > Let us also remind ourselves that in the laws 'irrational' > means that the action is not logical or reasonable when > assessed independently of the thinking of any player. This > state is unaffected by the fact that in the mind of a player > it appears rational or irrational. The scope of what is to > be classified as irrational does not change according to > the class of player; with intent carefully considered this > concept was taken out of the laws. > > [Nigel] > Is Grattan seems saying that we mustn't judge rationality by what > is rational for *this* player -- or for the average player in > *this* event -- but rather by what is rational in unspecified > general terms. Whatever this means, it does not seem to be clear to > the average director. But, at least, the basic WBFLC principle is > upheld: the delegation of legal power to the director. The director > must rely mainly on his own judgement and his feelings about the > players in dispute. Consistency is of less importance. > > This also means that, whenever you have lost the place, you can > hardly lose by claiming, without stating a line of play (providing > that the director is a fair card-player and not a sworn enemy). Nonsense. "...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer" [L70A]. This means that you cannot gain (unless you were actually planning to revoke, or something equally bizarre), and will almost certainly lose in all but the simplest cases. And the better a card-player the director is, the more certain this becomes. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 17:07:45 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:07:45 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$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: <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:46 AM, Robert Frick wrote: > On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 05:17:09 -0500, Grattan > wrote: > >> From: "Peter Eidt" >> >>> 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. > > 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. What's wrong with Herman's interpretation is that it depends on judging the rationality or irrationality of a proposed line of play "in the mind of the claimer". But players, by definition, do not propose lines of play that are irrational "in their own minds", so his fundamental distinction is nonsense. > 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. The director can -- indeed must, by definition! -- "accept" some originally unstated line of play when the original statement ambiguously encompasses more than one possible line. He may not accept an originally unstated line of play if doing so would require him to "unaccept" an originally stated line (unless that line is illegal). WTP? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From adam at irvine.com Wed Apr 1 17:08:41 2009 From: adam at irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2009 08:08:41 -0700 Subject: [blml] Suspicious header In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:59:14 +0200." <49D302B2.3080703@ripe.net> Message-ID: <200904011456.HAA15373@mailhub.irvine.com> Henk wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Of my last 4 posting, only one has shown up on the mailing list. When I > >> queried re the one two days ago that has yet to appear, I got this > >> message: > >> > >> > >> Your mail to 'blml' with the subject > >> > >> [Fwd: April Bridge World Editorial] > >> > >> Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > >> > >> The reason it is being held: > >> > >> Message has a suspicious header > >> > >> > >> Could someone perhaps guide me through the process to get a posting through this roadblock? > > You wait between 10 minutes and a few days for the moderator to > read your posting, decide that it is about bridge and approve it. > If it isn't about bridge, then the post will removed. > > > > That seems remote, though. Most likely, there's something else funny > > in one of the other mail headers, and Henk would be the only person > > who could help you. > > First: the "subject:" line is only one of the headers, there are a lot > more: "from:", "to:" and "date:" are the most common ones, but there are > also lots that a user will never see. > > The most common course for this message to appear is that your posting is > in HTML format. Some mailers mistakenly post in HTML by default, switch > it off. HTML can be abused by hackers and the spam filters are a bit > sensitive to this. And even if you don't use HTML format yourself, > a mail to which you replied can be in HTML format. If you think that is > the case, don't use the reply button but start with a fresh new mail. > > Finally, I'm about to move the list to a new server, with more recent > software, so I don't want to spend too much time on this problem. I'd think that if this (posting or replying in HTML format) is a fairly common problem, it deserves a better error message than "Message has a suspicious header". Presumably, the software knows that that's why it's rejecting the message (or can easily figure that out)? I'm just musing, though, not really criticizing. This is a common issue for me, as a compiler maintainer; I'm often getting requests for the compiler to display more helpful and informative error messages so that programmers know why the compiler is rejecting their program. So naturally I think the same sorts of things about other people's software. And, of course, if you're moving to a new server, I agree that it isn't worth worrying about. -- Adam From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 17:39:51 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:39:51 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be> <002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <68774D55-2656-499C-9D26-C51F4900C704@starpower.net> On Mar 31, 2009, at 10:04 AM, Grattan wrote: >> >> Peter Eidt wrote: >> >>> From: Herman De Wael >>> >>>> The other argument was already shown by me. The >>>> triple negative is actually a quadruple one (the >>>> alternative will NOT be accepted UNLESS the > ??? FAILURE to adopt it would be IRrational) and it is >>>> logically equal to the following : "the stated line will >>>> not be followed if it is irrational". >>> >>> This conclusion is nonsense. > > +=+ It is a non-sequitur. There is nothing in the law > that stops the Director following a line proposed by > the claimer because it is irrational. Herman stands > the law upon its head, and himself with it. Irrational > plays are *not* excluded by law. What Law 70E1 > does is to stop the Director disallowing a claimer's > supplementarily proposed play if not to make that > play would be irrational. When evaluating "supplementary" (i.e. originally unstated) plays, if there is some particular play such that "not to make [it] would be irrational", then isn't the director required to presume it? Whether or not it is actually "proposed" by the claimer? Surely the director isn't expected to choose a presumptive line from among irrational ones just because the claimer failed to "supplementarily propose" the only rational one? I think Herman is, at least, right insofar as he assumes that the criteria for "accepting from claimer" an unstated line of play do not depend on whether that line of play was originally noticed/mentioned/ specified by the TD or by the claimer himself. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 17:54:25 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 11:54:25 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be> <49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> <49D235D5.7080907@talktalk.net> Message-ID: <177DD018-AA7E-47CD-AE18-2C0A93BE03B3@starpower.net> On Mar 31, 2009, at 11:25 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [Herman de Wale] > I agree with Nigel's asessment that the on-line law works, but it only > does so because of one thing: claimer does not see which of the two > defenders has failed to accept his claim. So he does not know which > way > to finesse. This won't be practicle in F2F. Herman. > > [Nigel] > How does delcarer know which way to finesse, if it is always > Declarer's LHO who disputes the claim? If it were always declarer's LHO who disputed the claim, that would perforce mean that this particular LHO disputed every claim made by his RHO whether or not he had any valid reason to do so (unless, of course, he is receiving illegal secret signals from his partner telling him when to do so with no apparent reason). Were this so, LHO would have been thrown out of the game long since (I'd probably use L74B5, but YMMV). Declarer can logically decide which way to finesse based solely on the knowledge that there is someone in LHO's chair. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Wed Apr 1 18:01:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 12:01:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$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: <24E184A1-3B80-42AC-9B5C-0F4B186BF604@starpower.net> On Mar 31, 2009, at 12:57 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > 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? Absolutely. Of course, it would be an even better strategy to dispute a claim only after partner decides it's dodgy and lets you know by scratching his right ear while he coughs. And equally legal. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk Wed Apr 1 18:04:13 2009 From: Robin.Barker at npl.co.uk (Robin Barker) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:04:13 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <68774D55-2656-499C-9D26-C51F4900C704@starpower.net> Message-ID: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E30BA@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> This emphasis on "irrational" excludes normal lines we would include. It is irrational to play A10xx opposite KQ9xx by cashing the ace. It is irrational to play Axxx opposite KQ9xx (with enough entries) by cashing the king. Do we want to exclude these play from "normal plays"? Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and/or privileged material; it is for the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not a named addressee, you must not use, retain or disclose such information. NPL Management Ltd cannot guarantee that the e-mail or any attachments are free from viruses. NPL Management Ltd. Registered in England and Wales. No: 2937881 Registered Office: Serco House, 16 Bartley Wood Business Park, Hook, Hampshire, United Kingdom RG27 9UY ------------------------------------------------------------------- From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 1 18:16:05 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:16:05 +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$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be><002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be><1LowXH-1wDfgO0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <49D35295.9020403@skynet.be> Message-ID: <001c01c9b2e5$53006700$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:40 PM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? < >>> "Irrational plays are excluded by law" >>> >>> These two sentences are equal! >>> >>> Irrational plays, even within the claim >>> statement, are excluded by L70E. >>> +=+ I must be grateful to Herman for his efforts to teach me English. It is perhaps unfortunate that his comprehension of the language is limited. Or we should allow, possibly, that he reads carelessly. Either defect disqualifies him from inclusion among sound exponents of laws written in that language. It has been noted repeatedly that Law 70E1 applies *only* in the circumstances that *claimer* proposes a line of play not stated in the original statement of claim. It does not apply to the original statement of claim, nor does it govern the Director's adjudication other than in specified circumstances. Neither of Herman's 'equal' statements above is valid. Concerning irrationality the only *exclusion* lies upon the actions of the Director. In the said situation he must not disallow a supplementary proposal from claimer if it would be irrational for a player not to pursue that line of play. Elsewhere in the laws there is no restriction upon irrational calls or plays. They are legal unless they violate some other provision. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From john at asimere.com Wed Apr 1 18:16:49 2009 From: john at asimere.com (John (MadDog) Probst) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 17:16:49 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D15C05.4020608@talktalk.net> <49D1D5FE.80603@skynet.be><49D20245.1070607@talktalk.net> <49D2180A.9070408@skynet.be> Message-ID: ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 2:18 PM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? >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. This depends on the site and the software. John >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Thu Apr 2 00:20:14 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:20:14 +1100 Subject: [blml] basic blml principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Paul Lamford: >Or does anyone think that the "outwith" proposal must not contradict >the original stated line in any way, and if they think so, on which >law are they relying? +=+ The Director must consider whether Law 70D1 applies. +=+ 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." Pocket Oxford Dictionary: embrace, v.t. accept, adopt, (offer, course, doctrine, party) Richard Hills: Ergo, my reading of Law 70D1 in conjunction with the Pocket Oxford Dictionary suggests to me that the claimer can indeed successfully contradict its original claim statement. Paul Lamford: >Quizmaster: Which chocolate bar is named after the Roman God of >War? > >Egghead: Aero, er ... Ares, er ... Mars > >Quizmaster: Sorry I have to accept your first answer. > >The only test in the Laws is of the line's rationality. Richard Hills: Technically the Law 70D1 test is whether any alternative losing lines are "normal". An "abnormal" line is not necessarily an "irrational" line (given that one of the criteria for "normality" is "the class of player involved"). Paul Lamford: [snip] >And as for your proposal that BLML abstain from discussion of the >claim laws, there is an easy remedy there; those that do not find >them interesting can ignore that particular thread, and those that >do can reply. Richard Hills: Yes, I was wrong to make that suggestion. Even the apparently off- topic debate as to why John McCain gained one less Electoral College vote that he should have gained was relevant to the discussion of the Laws of Bridge. It emphasised that a general principle almost universally embodied in the Laws may have a specific exception which applies in the special circumstance of a particular Law. So the general principle of winner-take-all of a state's Electoral College votes had specific exceptions for Maine and Nebraska, and ex- Senator Obama duly won one of Nebraska's five Electoral College votes. Likewise the general Law 40A3 principle that a player may unilaterally make any call or play has two differing specific exceptions in Laws 40B2(d) and 72A. And, of course, endless drivel misstating the obvious on claims serves the useful purpose of prompting blmlers to read the actual words of the Claim Laws. Edmund Burke (1729-1797): "Because half-a-dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course they are many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little shrivelled, meagre, hopping, though loud and troublesome insects of the hour." 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 Apr 2 01:31:39 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:31:39 +1100 Subject: [blml] negativity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <49D35339.7000000@skynet.be> Message-ID: A.P. Herbert (1890-1971): "People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament." Richard Hills (1959- ), on hearing laughter at the next table: "Charge them double table money." Jeff Easterson: >>I'm not really certain and suppose it is irrelevant anyway but >>since when is "irrational" a grammatical negative? JE Herman De Wael: >Since it can be replaced by "not rational". Richard Hills: And "rational" can be replaced by "not irrational". So what? Neither "rational" nor "irrational" are grammatical negatives; rather both words are usually adjectives (except that in the field of mathematics "irrational" is a noun, used for numbers such as, for example, the square root of two). 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 Apr 2 02:25:02 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:25:02 +1100 Subject: [blml] A revoke case study [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: <000901c9b2c0$b7490250$25db06f0$@com> Message-ID: PO Sundelin: >>Question B: Is a decision by the TD under 64C considered a matter >>of law which I think can't be appealed? W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Mikado: Behold the Lord High Executioner A personage of noble rank and title-- A dignified and potent officer, Whose functions are particularly vital! Defer, defer, To the Lord High Executioner! David Burn: >Any ruling at all may be appealed (Law 92). > >"In adjudicating appeals the committee may exercise all powers >assigned by these Laws to the Director, except that the committee >may not overrule the Director in charge on a point of law or >regulations, or on exercise of his Law 91 disciplinary powers. >(The committee may recommend to the Director in charge that he >change such a ruling.)" (Law 93). Law 64C - Director Responsible for Equity: "When, after any established revoke, including those not subject to rectification, the Director deems that the non-offending side is insufficiently compensated by this Law for the damage caused, he shall assign an adjusted score." Law 12B1 definition of "damage": "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" Richard Hills: It seems to me that assessing how much "damage" was caused by a revoke is a question of fact, not a question of law, so it seems to me that an Appeals Committee may legitimately overrule the Lord High Executioner on a question of how many tricks are awarded to the non- offending side under Law 64C. Note: In those parts of The Rest of the World where weighted scores are permitted, Law 64C adjusted score rulings (unlike claim rulings) need not correspond to integers of tricks. In the initial case PO POsed, it seems to me that the result should be weighted to the effect of West covering the jack of spades with the king 80% of the time, and not covering 20% of the time. (A person capable of an occasional mechanical error, such as a revoke, may well be a person capable of an occasional bridge error, such as a 20% chance of forgetting to cover an honour with an honour.) 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 Apr 2 03:15:54 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:15:54 +1100 Subject: [blml] Paul Hauff [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: W.S. Gilbert (1836-1911), The Mikado: And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife, The Judicial humorist--I've got him on the list! All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life-- They'd none of 'em be missed--they'd none of 'em be missed. Paul Hauff: >Introduction: >The number of bridgeplayers has little growth and the rules did >not change substantially. >This is not the case for other games, mainly computerbased >games are invented and sold by great numbers, predicted are up >to 100 Mio new players. Games like "the sims" and "spore" are >rivals to bridge, because their players are creative inside the >game, they play in groups and communicate with others . > >The "2008 revised laws of duplicate bridge" (2008RLB) intend to >promote the development of bridge, by eliminating weak >procedures and offering new tools for shaping biding and play. [big snip of fundamentally rewritten draft Lawbook] Richard Hills: Welcome back to blml Paul (I note that you briefly posted on blml a few years ago). Do you have any cats? As I noted when responding in a parallel thread to Nigel Guthrie, it is a tad premature to propose fundamental changes to the Laws of Duplicate Bridge when the start date for compiling the next official revision is still four or five years hence. And as I also have noted, only the ACBL can illegally rewrite the current Laws of Duplicate Bridge. If Paul wishes to design and market his own game, fine. But to avoid confusion (and to avoid breach of copyright) Paul should rename his game "Egdirb" rather than misleadingly retaining the name "Bridge". Plus, in my opinion, Paul's premise is wrong. Other games of skill supplement (not annihilate) Duplicate Bridge. For example, I was initially a tournament chess player who chose to extend the variety of my options by taking bridge lessons. And even now my regular bridge games on Tuesday and Thursday nights are supplemented by my regular multi-player strategy board games on some Friday and/or Saturday nights. (And many of the rules of those multi-player strategy boardgames are written in pellucidly clear prose, with the sequencing of the rules _not_ arbitrarily following a sequencing adopted in 1975; something the new Drafting Committee should consider in 2017.) 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 rfrick at rfrick.info Thu Apr 2 07:32:13 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 00:32:13 -0500 Subject: [blml] negativity [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:31:39 -0500, wrote: > A.P. Herbert (1890-1971): > > "People must not do things for fun. We are not here for fun. > There is no reference to fun in any Act of Parliament." > > Richard Hills (1959- ), on hearing laughter at the next table: > > "Charge them double table money." > > Jeff Easterson: > >>> I'm not really certain and suppose it is irrelevant anyway but >>> since when is "irrational" a grammatical negative? JE > > Herman De Wael: > >> Since it can be replaced by "not rational". > > Richard Hills: > > And "rational" can be replaced by "not irrational". So what? > > Neither "rational" nor "irrational" are grammatical negatives; > rather both words are usually adjectives (except that in the > field of mathematics "irrational" is a noun, used for numbers > such as, for example, the square root of two). > ir- is a morpheme. My dictionary defines it as in-. The first definition of in- is "not; without". So irrational is a negative (probably even a grammatical negative), just like it looks, and not irrational a double negative. But.... A double negative doesn't always make a positive. 'Elvis Presley had no irrational thoughts today' is true and 'Elvis Presley had a rational thought today' is false. From richard.hills at immi.gov.au Thu Apr 2 06:56:16 2009 From: richard.hills at immi.gov.au (richard.hills at immi.gov.au) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 15:56:16 +1100 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Houston minutes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] Message-ID: DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION HILTON HOTEL, HOUSTON, TX MARCH 14, 2009 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chip Martel, Chairperson Georgia Heth Adam Wildavsky, Vice-Chair Eric Rodwell Peter Boyd Matt Smith Chris Compton John Solodar Allan Falk Howard Weinstein Ron Gerard ALSO PRESENT: Gary Blaiss, ACBL Executive Administrative Officer Mike Flader, ACBL Tournament Director Matt Koltnow, ACBL Tournament Director Al Levy, ACBL District 24 Director The meeting was called to order at approximately 10:00 AM. The minutes of the Boston meeting were approved. The WBF Laws Committee minutes were discussed. After review of the report of the Law 27 survey as reported by Matt Smith, there was a consensus to continue to encourage tournament directors to be reasonably flexible/liberal in allowing a replacement call without immediate rectification (penalty) when that replacement call is more precise or similar in meaning to the insufficient bid (Law 27B1.) However, if without assistance gained through the insufficient bid the result could well have been different and in consequence the non- offending side is damaged, the director applies Law 27D. The Commission discussed how the tournament director is to apply Law 27B1. A consensus was reached on the following: * The tournament director should refrain from looking at hands to decrease or eliminate the possibility of transmission of information about the deal to the players via the director. * The tournament director explains the law to the table without mentioning specific actions that could be taken without immediate rectification except for the action permitted by Law 27B1(a). If the player committing the infraction or that player's LHO wishes to know whether the director will accept a specific call without immediate rectification, the question and the response should take place away from the table. Some of the examples in the commentary produced by Ton Kooijman of the WBF Laws Committee would be useful to tournament directors as guidelines to identify instances in which the tournament director should be more alert to the necessity of a Law 27D adjustment. Matt Smith will ask the ACBL Tournament Department to codify the director's approach and send it to the Commission for review. In applying Law 64C to Law 64B2, the director first looks at the non- offending side's equity after the first revoke (e.g. a one trick penalty would have been awarded). So while there is no automatic penalty for second revoke in the same suit by the same player, there may still be an adjustment if the revoking side regains a trick that might have been lost due to the penalty after the first revoke. The procedure that is used by tournament directors to conduct polls to assist in determining logical alternatives and whether a logical alternative was demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information was discussed. There was a consensus that tournament directors: * Should continue to pose questions carefully in order to allow the pollee to respond freely. * Should attempt to poll players who can be objective rather than ideologues. * Should continue to include in polls peers who are at the same bridge expertise level as those involved at the table. 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). The meeting was adjourned at noon. 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 Gampas at aol.com Thu Apr 2 10:27:37 2009 From: Gampas at aol.com (Gampas at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 04:27:37 EDT Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? Message-ID: In a message dated 01/04/2009 15:40:02 GMT Standard Time, ehaa at starpower.net writes: Nonsense. "...any doubtful point as to a claim shall be resolved against the claimer" [L70A]. This means that you cannot gain (unless you were actually planning to revoke, or something equally bizarre), and will almost certainly lose in all but the simplest cases. And the better a card-player the director is, the more certain this becomes. [paul lamford] `Nonsense!' said Alice, very loudly and decidedly,` - Saying nonsense to a TD!! Indeed, the nonsense is from you. Whenever the player's statement would have generated a line which is "abnormal" for the bridge world generally (Grattan) or the particular player in that state of mind (de Wael), he or she gains by being silent. At least under what seems to be the current misinterpretation of 70D1 and 70E1, which prevents the claimant substituting a normal line for his original drivel (Hills). And I know of players including myself quite capable of selecting abnormal lines as part of a claim. And the better a card-player the director is, the more certain he is to decide that the ridiculous line you were about to advocate is abnormal. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 2 11:38:58 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:38:58 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <001c01c9b2e5$53006700$0302a8c0@Mildred> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com><001a01c9b11e$e0300b30$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0C9D4.1000402@skynet.be><001001c9b14b$7de19890$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D0EF0E.3090903@skynet.be> <002b01c9b19a$e8f5e9c0$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be><002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be><1LowXH-1wDfgO0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <49D35295.9020403@skynet.be> <001c01c9b2e5$53006700$0302a8c0@Mildred> Message-ID: <49D487B2.6030302@skynet.be> Grattan, I have been in the past been guilty of impolite statements, but I fear I am not alone in this matter. Some of the things you write about me are totally in contrast to what you tell me when we meet. Why is that? 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: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 12:40 PM > Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > < > >>>> "Irrational plays are excluded by law" >>>> >>>> These two sentences are equal! >>>> >>>> Irrational plays, even within the claim >>>> statement, are excluded by L70E. >>>> > +=+ I must be grateful to Herman for his efforts to > teach me English. It is perhaps unfortunate that his > comprehension of the language is limited. I really don't see the need for this sarcasm. We are having a discussion about bridge laws. There is nothing in the English language that I fail to grasp. > Or we > should allow, possibly, that he reads carelessly. > Either defect disqualifies him from inclusion among > sound exponents of laws written in that language. > It has been noted repeatedly that Law 70E1 > applies *only* in the circumstances that *claimer* > proposes a line of play not stated in the original > statement of claim. It does not apply to the original > statement of claim, nor does it govern the Director's > adjudication other than in specified circumstances. Indeed. And it has been noted repeatedly that I am only talking about L70E issues here. > Neither of Herman's 'equal' statements above is > valid. Concerning irrationality the only *exclusion* > lies upon the actions of the Director. In the said > situation he must not disallow a supplementary > proposal from claimer if it would be irrational for > a player not to pursue that line of play. Elsewhere > in the laws there is no restriction upon irrational > calls or plays. They are legal unless they violate > some other provision. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Typical Grattanese. Can I be blaimed for not understanding this sentence. Is it because of my "limited" knowledge of English or because of Grattan's use of superfluous sentences. Let me repeat once more my logical inference: When a claimer issues a statement which contains a line which becomes irrational, he will no doubt also propose an alternative line, and L70E will per force become into application. Grattan's insistence that he is talking about other things than L70E is therefore invalid. Since we are talking about irrational lines within claim statements, L70E will come into application. And L70E, after parsing, says that the irrational line need not be followed. Hence my conclusion: irrational lines, when stated, are not to be followed. Always using MY interpretation of irrational: consistent with the knowledge (at the time) of claimer. It is my opinion that any other interpretation is nonsensical. Herman. From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 2 11:42:10 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:42:10 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net> Message-ID: <49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> Eric Landau wrote: > > What's wrong with Herman's interpretation is that it depends on > judging the rationality or irrationality of a proposed line of play > "in the mind of the claimer". But players, by definition, do not > propose lines of play that are irrational "in their own minds", so > his fundamental distinction is nonsense. > No it is not. Because there are changing circumstances (L70E is all about that) which turn lines which were rational at first, into irrational later. When the knowledge changes, so does the rationality of certain lines. I agree with Eric that "by definition", all stated lines are initially rational. Only when something changes can lines "become" irrational. And when they do, they are excluded from consideration. Herman. From dalburn at btopenworld.com Thu Apr 2 12:22:37 2009 From: dalburn at btopenworld.com (David Burn) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:22:37 +0100 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net> <49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@com> [HdW] I agree with Eric that "by definition", all stated lines are initially rational. Only when something changes can lines "become" irrational. And when they do, they are excluded from consideration. [DALB] South, declarer in six spades with: 10987 5432 432 A5 AKQJ543 AK AK 32 wins the opening lead of a heart and tables his cards, announcing that he will draw two rounds of trumps with the ace and king and concede a club trick. The opponents object, pointing out that the card South believes to be the king of spades is in fact the king of clubs, so that the actual North-South hands are: 10987 5432 432 A5 AQJ543 AK AK K32 What "rational" lines of play, if any, is declarer permitted to substitute for his originally stated line? David Burn London, England From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 2 12:56:03 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:56:03 +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$0302a8c0@Mildred><49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <49D1ED10.1020409@skynet.be><002401c9b209$e5c23690$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D32357.5010900@skynet.be><1LowXH-1wDfgO0@fwd10.aul.t-online.de> <49D35295.9020403@skynet.be><001c01c9b2e5$53006700$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D487B2.6030302@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002801c9b381$aad4ddc0$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 10:38 AM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > Grattan, I have been in the past been guilty of impolite > statements, but I fear I am not alone in this matter. Some > of the things you write about me are totally in contrast to > what you tell me when we meet. Why is that? > +=+ Well, Herman, it is because some of the things you write here are in danger of misleading the less experienced subscribers and are not deserving of my respect. When we have discussed subjects at European events I have not agreed something I consider wrong - and it may be that civil language has disguised feelings that have gone unnoticed. However, I will try to restrain my irritation, as when you explain the English language to me. I do not seek to be hurtful. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From lapinjatka at jldata.fi Thu Apr 2 13:04:39 2009 From: lapinjatka at jldata.fi (Lapinjatka) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 14:04:39 +0300 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net> <49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@com> Message-ID: <49D49BC7.6050006@jldata.fi> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I agree with Eric that "by definition", all stated lines are initially > rational. Only when something changes can lines "become" irrational. And > when they do, they are excluded from consideration. > > [DALB] > > South, declarer in six spades with: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AKQJ543 > AK > AK > 32 > > wins the opening lead of a heart and tables his cards, announcing that he > will draw two rounds of trumps with the ace and king and concede a club > trick. > > The opponents object, pointing out that the card South believes to be the > king of spades is in fact the king of clubs, so that the actual North-South > hands are: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AQJ543 > AK > AK > K32 > > What "rational" lines of play, if any, is declarer permitted to substitute > for his originally stated line? > > David Burn > London, England > > > I don't force him duck club even if claim statement would : Draw two rounds of trump without saying Ace and King. Now he is safe with claim statement. Spade ace and king of clubs, he can't duck club anymore. Juuso . > > _______________________________________________ > blml mailing list > blml at amsterdamned.org > http://www.amsterdamned.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > From Hermandw at skynet.be Thu Apr 2 13:26:09 2009 From: Hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:26:09 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@com> References: <49CF7F40.3020701@aol.com> <001a01c9b11e$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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net> <49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@com> Message-ID: <49D4A0D1.7060507@skynet.be> David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I agree with Eric that "by definition", all stated lines are initially > rational. Only when something changes can lines "become" irrational. And > when they do, they are excluded from consideration. > > [DALB] > > South, declarer in six spades with: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AKQJ543 > AK > AK > 32 > > wins the opening lead of a heart and tables his cards, announcing that he > will draw two rounds of trumps with the ace and king and concede a club > trick. > > The opponents object, pointing out that the card South believes to be the > king of spades is in fact the king of clubs, so that the actual North-South > hands are: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AQJ543 > AK > AK > K32 > > What "rational" lines of play, if any, is declarer permitted to substitute > for his originally stated line? > > David Burn > London, England > Good Question. Declarer has made a mistake and shall be held to that mistake until it becomes clear. Declarer has stated that he'll play two rounds of trumps first. Now, I am not going to let that be the king of (spades/clubs). While it is possible to play on while leaving a club between the spades, it is less possible to play the king of a wrong suit. But I may accept other opinions in this regard. (*) So, I will let the ace of spades be played first, and there are two possibilities: 1) the king of spades drops. Declarer recovers and draws the remaining spade. He now has to play the rest for one loser (see below). 2) the king of spades does not drop. Declarer takes out the king of (clubs) but sees it is not a spade. Declarer recovers and knows he has a trump loser and cannot afford to lose another trick (see below). In both cases, claimer now knows he holds K32 of clubs, and he has a trump left to ruff the club - so unless I am very mistaken, all tricks (except perhaps the king of spades if it did not drop) are his. I grant declarer 12 tricks, 13 if the SK is singleton. I may even rule that the possibility exists that claimer notices the CK even before playing, in which case it is normal for him to finesse, so I will award 12 tricks when the SK is singleton in West also. (*) there are few options if he plays the CK first. He will win that trick and see everyone following clubs. He will now certainly notice that he has played the CK and I'll still rule 12 tricks - unless of course the CK is ruffed, in which case I might rule 11 if the SK is now singleton (or doubleton, of course) in west. Not a very good question then, after all. 12 tricks all around, and i doubt anyone will disagree with that ruling. (famous last words!) Herman. From grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 2 13:37:59 2009 From: grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk (Grattan) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:37:59 +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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <49D1D576.9050903@skynet.be> <1Loa24-0ZZuKm0@fwd07.aul.t-online.de> <001201c9b1e9$dad8afe0$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net><49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@com> Message-ID: <002f01c9b387$7df67330$0302a8c0@Mildred> Grattan Endicott To: "'Bridge Laws Mailing List'" Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2009 11:22 AM Subject: Re: [blml] basic claiming principles? > [HdW] > > I agree with Eric that "by definition", all stated lines are initially > rational. Only when something changes can lines "become" irrational. And > when they do, they are excluded from consideration. > > [DALB] > > South, declarer in six spades with: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AKQJ543 > AK > AK > 32 > > wins the opening lead of a heart and tables his cards, announcing that he > will draw two rounds of trumps with the ace and king and concede a club > trick. > > The opponents object, pointing out that the card South believes to be the > king of spades is in fact the king of clubs, so that the actual > North-South > hands are: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AQJ543 > AK > AK > K32 > > What "rational" lines of play, if any, is declarer permitted to substitute > for his originally stated line? > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Questions of rationality are not at issue. A player is entitled to nominate an irrational play if he chooses. What matters here is that the player may not propose an illegal play. This occurs after he has played the Ace and when he comes to play a card he does not possess. At this point 70E1 kicks in. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 2 15:56:33 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:56:33 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42252D04-ACE1-472A-A16B-FE82CBDDF8C8@starpower.net> On Mar 31, 2009, at 8:59 PM, Gampas at aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 31/03/2009 01:52:03 GMT Standard Time, > grandaeval at tiscali.co.uk writes: > > 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. > > [paul lamford] So, it would seem that, presumably up to the end of the > correction period, the claimant may propose an alternative and > different line of > play, and the Director must then allow it if it would be irrational > not to > adopt it. So, someone for example conceding a trick to the queen > of trumps when > holding eleven of the suit may, at any time up to the end of the > correction > period, propose the alternative line of play of rejecting the > originally stated > finesse, and playing the ace and king instead. If the director > judges that > it would be irrational (for Grattan using the generally accepted > meaning of > the word; for Herman and some others for this particular player in > this > particular mindset) not to adopt the alternative line of play, then > this "outwith" > proposal gets accepted and the new claim is accepted. Or does > anyone think > that the "outwith" proposal must not contradict the original stated > line in any > way, and if they think so, on which law are they relying? Yes and no. We recognize the difference between the "original stated line" and the line of play that would be forced if the original statement were taken literally; we allow lines that are less than fully stated when we believe the intention is clear. In a familiar example, A10xx opposite KQ9xx, we allow five tricks on any distribution to a claimer who has explicitly stated that he will start the suit with the K, even though he has not specified how he will play subsequently if someone shows out. Similarly, with Axx opposite KQJ9x, we allow the declarer who has stated he will play A then K the benefit of presuming an implicit, unstated qualification ("unless, of course, RHO shows out on the A"). Contrast this with our xxx opposite AKJxxxxx, where claimer stated he would finesse for the Q; there's no logical unstated qualification for us to find ("unless, of course, I come to my senses" doesn't hack it), so he's stuck finessing. Given the above caveat, the "outwith" proposal must not contradict the "intended" line incorporated in the original statement. That relies on L70E1: the subject of its single sentence is "any unstated line of play", and all of what follows ("the success of which...") modifies "any unstated line of play". There is no legal basis for applying the criteria set forth in that law to the "stated" (i.e. "intended") line. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 2 16:57:44 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:57:44 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E30BA@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> References: <46A0F33545E63740BC7563DE59CA9C6D4E30BA@exchsvr2.npl.ad.local> Message-ID: <533E4815-8531-4F3A-92B3-8A37A25B54DD@starpower.net> On Apr 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Robin Barker wrote: > This emphasis on "irrational" excludes normal lines we would include. > > It is irrational to play A10xx opposite KQ9xx by cashing the ace. > It is irrational to play Axxx opposite KQ9xx (with enough entries) > by cashing the king. > > Do we want to exclude these play from "normal plays"? No, no, and no. There are three classes of plays: the optimal, which are quite rare, the irrational, which are also quite rare, and the vast middle between them into which most plays fall. Plays in this category are normal, in the ordinary sense, for some players, "careless or inferior" for others; these are defined and treated as "'normal'" for "purposes of Laws 70 and 71". If the plays Robin asks about (which are indubitably "careless or inferior" for a player of his level) do not fall into this last category, it's hard to imagine what would. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 2 17:24:24 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:24:24 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic blml principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52D8B277-7442-4CAF-8516-D3802F83962A@starpower.net> On Apr 1, 2009, at 6:20 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > Technically the Law 70D1 test is whether any alternative losing lines > are "normal". An "abnormal" line is not necessarily an "irrational" > line (given that one of the criteria for "normality" is "the class of > player involved"). I thought we had, with the publication of the 2008 laws, reached a consensus based on both a straightforward reading of the L70-71 footnote *and* the expressly stated intent of the re-writers of that note that the reference to "class of player" clarifies that it is *not* one of the criteria for "normality", i.e. that "normal" incorporates plays that would be normal for some class of players whilst (abnormally) careless or inferior for some other, thus directing us to make no distinction between them on that basis. Am I wrong? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 2 18:23:07 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:23:07 -0400 Subject: [blml] ACBLLC Houston minutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <831E46D0-8F99-42D3-BAF6-047A479B7E20@starpower.net> On Apr 2, 2009, at 12:56 AM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > MINUTES OF THE ACBL LAWS COMMISSION > > 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). Excuse me? "A logical alternative action is one that... would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players..." [L16B1 (b)]. So if the number of players who would consider it is not "less than a major proportion" -- say, 90 out of 100 -- it is not an LA? That is what the above paragraph says. Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 2 18:36:18 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 12:36:18 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic claiming principles? In-Reply-To: <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@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$0302a8c0@Mildred> <19FF9E31-C802-462C-AACD-D64C1A33932A@starpower.net> <49D48872.6090707@skynet.be> <000001c9b37c$f2794440$d76bccc0$@com> Message-ID: On Apr 2, 2009, at 6:22 AM, David Burn wrote: > [HdW] > > I agree with Eric that "by definition", all stated lines are initially > rational. Only when something changes can lines "become" > irrational. And > when they do, they are excluded from consideration. > > [DALB] > > South, declarer in six spades with: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AKQJ543 > AK > AK > 32 > > wins the opening lead of a heart and tables his cards, announcing > that he > will draw two rounds of trumps with the ace and king and concede a > club > trick. > > The opponents object, pointing out that the card South believes to > be the > king of spades is in fact the king of clubs, so that the actual > North-South > hands are: > > 10987 > 5432 > 432 > A5 > > AQJ543 > AK > AK > K32 > > What "rational" lines of play, if any, is declarer permitted to > substitute > for his originally stated line? I would rule that he plays trumps first, for one loser unless stiff K is onside, and, assuming he can win any return after losing to the K (i.e. unless LHO holds stiff K and RHO a side void) will take the rest. Would anyone really refuse to "allow" him to "see" that the CK has been restored to his hand once he learns that the SK is no longer there? Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From ehaa at starpower.net Thu Apr 2 19:14:02 2009 From: ehaa at starpower.net (Eric Landau) Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 13:14:02 -0400 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > The argument in favour of Law 68D (Play Ceases) cannot be described as > "novel"; it has been obvious since at least the 1975 edition of the > Duplicate Bridge Lawbook. (No doubt Sven Pran or Marvin French will > be able to reveal whether an analogous Law was in place in the 1963 > edition of the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook.) 1963 Laws (ACBL edition) L71: "When declarer has made a claim which is questioned by either opponent, the Director should be summoned immediately, and no action of any kind should be taken pending his arrival. If either defender continues play after the claim has been questioned, and before the arrival of the Director, he may forfeit his rights under L72." Eric Landau 1107 Dale Drive Silver Spring MD 20910 ehaa at starpower.net From harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 10:27:41 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:27:41 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/4/2 Eric Landau : > On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> The argument in favour of Law 68D (Play Ceases) cannot be described as >> "novel"; it has been obvious since at least the 1975 edition of the >> Duplicate Bridge Lawbook. ?(No doubt Sven Pran or Marvin French will >> be able to reveal whether an analogous Law was in place in the 1963 >> edition of the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook.) > > 1963 Laws (ACBL edition) L71: ?"When declarer has made a claim which > is questioned by either opponent, the Director should be summoned > immediately, and no action of any kind should be taken pending his > arrival. ?If either defender continues play after the claim has been > questioned, and before the arrival of the Director, he may forfeit > his rights under L72." The play cease part wasn't included in the 1932, nor in the 1948 laws. The latter in fact say: L88(d): "Either defender may require that play continues, in which case section 89 applies." L89: "If either defender requires that play continues after declarer's claim, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face upward on the table. Declarer may make no play incinsistent with any statement ha may have made. Unless declarer has stated to do so at the time of making his claim- (a) He may not lead a trump while either defender has a trump (unless or until his hand is all trumps). (b) He may not finesse eihter in the suit led or in trumping the suit led. If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited by this section, either defender may require him to withdraw it, provided neither defender has played a card after it." (There's more to this. In fact, a defender protesting the claim could face his hand and suggest a play to his partner.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 harald.skjaran at gmail.com Fri Apr 3 10:28:02 2009 From: harald.skjaran at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Harald_Skj=C3=A6ran?=) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:28:02 +0200 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2009/4/2 Eric Landau : > On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: > >> The argument in favour of Law 68D (Play Ceases) cannot be described as >> "novel"; it has been obvious since at least the 1975 edition of the >> Duplicate Bridge Lawbook. ?(No doubt Sven Pran or Marvin French will >> be able to reveal whether an analogous Law was in place in the 1963 >> edition of the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook.) > > 1963 Laws (ACBL edition) L71: ?"When declarer has made a claim which > is questioned by either opponent, the Director should be summoned > immediately, and no action of any kind should be taken pending his > arrival. ?If either defender continues play after the claim has been > questioned, and before the arrival of the Director, he may forfeit > his rights under L72." The play cease part wasn't included in the 1932, nor in the 1948 laws. The latter in fact say: L88(d): "Either defender may require that play continues, in which case section 89 applies." L89: "If either defender requires that play continues after declarer's claim, declarer must play on, leaving his hand face upward on the table. Declarer may make no play incinsistent with any statement ha may have made. Unless declarer has stated to do so at the time of making his claim- (a) He may not lead a trump while either defender has a trump (unless or until his hand is all trumps). (b) He may not finesse eihter in the suit led or in trumping the suit led. If declarer attempts to make a play prohibited by this section, either defender may require him to withdraw it, provided neither defender has played a card after it." (There's more to this. In fact, a defender protesting the claim could face his hand and suggest a play to his partner.) -- Kind regards, Harald Skj?ran > > > 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 mfrench1 at san.rr.com Fri Apr 3 20:23:51 2009 From: mfrench1 at san.rr.com (Marvin L French) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:23:51 -0800 Subject: [blml] basic on-line principles? References: Message-ID: <97B08136543C46AB897DC4537BAACD56@MARVLAPTOP> From: "Harald Skj?ran" < > 2009/4/2 Eric Landau : >> On Mar 31, 2009, at 9:34 PM, richard.hills at immi.gov.au wrote: >> >>> The argument in favour of Law 68D (Play Ceases) cannot be >>> described as >>> "novel"; it has been obvious since at least the 1975 edition of >>> the >>> Duplicate Bridge Lawbook. (No doubt Sven Pran or Marvin French >>> will >>> be able to reveal whether an analogous Law was in place in the >>> 1963 >>> edition of the Duplicate Bridge Lawbook.) >> >> 1963 Laws (ACBL edition) L71: "When declarer has made a claim >> which >> is questioned by either opponent, the Director should be summoned >> immediately, and no action of any kind should be taken pending >> his >> arrival. If either defender continues play after the claim has >> been >> questioned, and before the arrival of the Director, he may >> forfeit >> his rights under L72." > > The play cease part wasn't included in the 1932, nor in the 1948 > laws. 1932 Law 26 Hand Not Played Out (2) If declarer claims....he must leave his cards face up on the table and make a complete statement...Declarer cannot be subjected to any revoke penalty for a play made after he has exposed his cards. (3) If a claim or a concession has been accepted and all players have exposed their cards, no player can claim that the play of the hand shall be continued. Marv: This seems to imply that the other side can ask play to continue if their cards have not been exposed. Marv Marvin L French San Diego, CA www.marvinfrench.com From rfrick at rfrick.info Sat Apr 4 15:19:50 2009 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 08:19:50 -0500 Subject: [blml] basic blml principles? [SEC=UNOFFICIAL] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:32:14 -0500, wrote: > in the current issue of the ABF > Newsletter, Laurie Kelso clearly and concisely wrote: > The director normally requires the claimer to repeat, and if > necessary, elaborate on any clarification statement. Is this an astounding statement? I asked about claimer providing more information beyond the original claim. One blmler answered that he did not ask for more information and ignored everything the claimer said. There was no contradiction. There is nothing in the claiming procedure (L70B) that allows the director to elaborate the claim. The laws specifically say that claimer just repeats the statement accompanying the original claim. However, I do think this is a great idea and should be incorporated into the 2018 laws. It would seem to solve some difficult problems in judging claims (such as whether declarer can actually play out the hand and not block the suits).