From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 8 15:21:24 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:21:24 -0500 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations Message-ID: 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. They agree to play odd-even discards; the house player knows the beginner doesn't know what those mean. What should the opponents be told about discards when they ask? 2. Someone (my parter, actually), agrees to play that a weak two bids show 2 of the top 3 honors, even though this is not good bridge. Then, when she realizes it is not good bridge, she opens a weak two with only one of the top three honors. Is it okay that the opps are told she has two of the top three? 3. Their card says 10+ for overcalls. He overcalls with 8 HCP, and has no explanation except that he wanted to. Can he fill out his card this way? 4. They agree to play 5-card majors, an opening 1 Diamond shows 4, and an opening 1 Club shows 3. Then, in the face of 4-4-3-2, they open 1 Club and the opponents are told this shows 3. Is that fair? 5. Playing opening 15-17 HCP no trumps opens 1 NT with only 14 HCP. If he miscounted points, fine. If he forgot his agreement, fine. If he has a good hand that really has the strength of 15 HCP (for example, all of the tens), fine. If he decided to psyche? Fine. But if he did it because he likes to open 1NT with 14 HCP? I have a problem with that. There is a common theme here, of course. The current laws require only that players describe their agreement. It does not require them to follow their agreement or explain what they actually play. From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 8 15:34:05 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 15:34:05 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Sendt: 8. februar 2015 15:21 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] predictable system violations > > > 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. They agree to play odd- > even discards; the house player knows the beginner doesn't know what those > mean. What should the opponents be told about discards when they ask? > > > 2. Someone (my parter, actually), agrees to play that a weak two bids show 2 of > the top 3 honors, even though this is not good bridge. Then, when she realizes > it is not good bridge, she opens a weak two with only one of the top three > honors. Is it okay that the opps are told she has two of the top three? > > > 3. Their card says 10+ for overcalls. He overcalls with 8 HCP, and has no > explanation except that he wanted to. Can he fill out his card this way? > > > 4. They agree to play 5-card majors, an opening 1 Diamond shows 4, and an > opening 1 Club shows 3. Then, in the face of 4-4-3-2, they open 1 Club and the > opponents are told this shows 3. Is that fair? > > > 5. Playing opening 15-17 HCP no trumps opens 1 NT with only 14 HCP. If he > miscounted points, fine. If he forgot his agreement, fine. If he has a good hand > that really has the strength of 15 HCP (for example, all of the tens), fine. If he > decided to psyche? Fine. But if he did it because he likes to open 1NT with 14 > HCP? I have a problem with that. > > > There is a common theme here, of course. The current laws require only that > players describe their agreement. It does not require them to follow their > agreement or explain what they actually play. [Sven Pran] The current laws include Law 40C1. Read (and understand) this Law, it answers your questions. From rfrick at rfrick.info Sun Feb 8 15:53:01 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:53:01 -0500 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:34:05 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > [Sven Pran] > The current laws include Law 40C1. Read (and understand) this Law, it > answers your questions. Actually, the law only describes what is legal. You should know that. Sorry if it was not obvious that I was asking about what is fair and right and how we should play bridge; I am painfully aware what the current lawbook says. 40C? Really? Since my partner has asked to play that an opening weak 2 bid shows 2 of the top 3 honors, I have less reason than the opps to think she will violate that agreement. For all they know, I was the one who wanted that. Most of the other examples were for players who have not played together or not had the situation come up before. Or, they require using 40C in practice rather than theory. His wife looked clueless, my judgement was that he regularly overcalled with less than 10 HCP and she did not know that (or care). From svenpran at online.no Sun Feb 8 19:00:09 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 19:00:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> Message-ID: <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Sendt: 8. februar 2015 15:53 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations > > On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:34:05 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > > > > [Sven Pran] > > The current laws include Law 40C1. Read (and understand) this Law, it > > answers your questions. > > > Actually, the law only describes what is legal. You should know that. Sorry if it > was not obvious that I was asking about what is fair and right and how we > should play bridge; I am painfully aware what the current lawbook says. > > 40C? Really? Since my partner has asked to play that an opening weak 2 bid > shows 2 of the top 3 honors, I have less reason than the opps to think she will > violate that agreement. For all they know, I was the one who wanted that. > > Most of the other examples were for players who have not played together or > not had the situation come up before. Or, they require using 40C in practice > rather than theory. His wife looked clueless, my judgement was that he > regularly overcalled with less than 10 HCP and she did not know that (or care). [Sven Pran] I specifically said Law 40C1, and as it appears you don't recognize that law, here it is: A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the announced understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The very first sentence in that law). Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings and must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 9 03:20:38 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 21:20:38 -0500 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:00:09 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> Robert Frick >> Sendt: 8. februar 2015 15:53 >> Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List >> Emne: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations >> >> On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 09:34:05 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: >> >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > The current laws include Law 40C1. Read (and understand) this Law, it >> > answers your questions. >> >> >> Actually, the law only describes what is legal. You should know that. > Sorry if it >> was not obvious that I was asking about what is fair and right and how we >> should play bridge; I am painfully aware what the current lawbook says. >> >> 40C? Really? Since my partner has asked to play that an opening weak 2 bid >> shows 2 of the top 3 honors, I have less reason than the opps to think she > will >> violate that agreement. For all they know, I was the one who wanted that. >> >> Most of the other examples were for players who have not played together > or >> not had the situation come up before. Or, they require using 40C in > practice >> rather than theory. His wife looked clueless, my judgement was that he >> regularly overcalled with less than 10 HCP and she did not know that (or > care). > > [Sven Pran] > I specifically said Law 40C1, and as it appears you don't recognize that > law, here it is: > > A player may deviate from his side's announced understandings always > provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation > than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings > which then form part of the partnership's methods and must be disclosed in > accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system. If the > Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the > opponents he shall adjust the score and may award a procedural penalty. > > You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the announced > understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of > the deviation than have the opponents (The very first sentence in that law). > > Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated > deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the deviations > become part of the partnership (implied) understandings and must be > announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. > > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. And partner always has more reason to be aware of a deviation than the opponents. Even if the deviation is a psyche, tactical bid, or simple a mistake. So, if I understand you correctly and you have thought out your position (for once), you can (and think everyone should) apply L40C1 to every wrong explanation. But that isn't how the rest of the laws read, nor how most people rule. From rfrick at rfrick.info Mon Feb 9 03:32:08 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2015 21:32:08 -0500 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 13:00:09 -0500, Sven Pran wrote: > > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. > To repeat what I already said once, if my partner asks me to play that a weak two bid shows 2 of the top 3 honors, I have more reason than the opponents to think that she WILL follow the convention she suggested and wanted. Not less. The beginner has no reason to this his partner is deviating from the odd-even discards. The opponents are more likely to either guess at this or notice it. In #4, neither player could see the upcoming problem, so the player had no awareness that her partner might have only 2 clubs. O is 0. In #5, the players have never played together. Really, the examples show an obvious awareness of L40C1. The point is that L40C1 is a band-aid, and in practice not easily applied. We can add more band-aids or attack the underlying problem. Or, to try to take you seriously, last night a player led the 5 from A753, his partner describing it as 4th best. He claimed to make a mistake. His partner, his wife, would have a better awareness than the opponents of how often he makes a mistake. According to you, that kicks in L40C1. Are you saying I should have ruled against him? From jfusselman at gmail.com Mon Feb 9 03:52:54 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2015 20:52:54 -0600 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'll put your summary first. [Robert Frick] There is a common theme here, of course. The current laws require only that players describe their agreement. It does not require them to follow their agreement or explain what they actually play. [Jerry Fusselman] Many years ago, I lobbied on BLML for replacing "agreement" in the laws with "understandings." Fortunately, this occurred almost completely, though it was not due to my efforts. The laws require explaining understandings, not agreements. Nevertheless, you given us five great examples. [Jerry Fusselman] If a situation occurs in which the two partners have different understandings of the partnership understandings, then we have a situation where the director should generally rule MI. Call this _rule-of-thumb 1_. No matter what either partner says, we're not exactly playing bridge here. I believe that the laws protect the opponents from this kind of abuse. [Robert Frick] 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. They agree to play odd-even discards; the house player knows the beginner doesn't know what those mean. What should the opponents be told about discards when they ask? [Jerry Fusselman] This player, an "expert," has almost guaranteed causing MI by agreeing to play a method he knows his partner does not understand. It is not easy for either partner to explain this understanding without creating MI. I don't think I could manage it even if I am considered the expert. The expert should not have caused this situation, and director should rule MI with regularity here. Directors should watch for this kind of violation. [Robert Frick] 2. Someone (my parter, actually), agrees to play that a weak two bids show 2 of the top 3 honors, even though this is not good bridge. Then, when she realizes it is not good bridge, she opens a weak two with only one of the top three honors. Is it okay that the opps are told she has two of the top three? [Jerry Fusselman] That would be MI. If a player agrees to play something she knows that she is likely to violate, then by rule-of-thumb 1, it is MI when the "understanding" is disclosed. [Robert Frick] 3. Their card says 10+ for overcalls. He overcalls with 8 HCP, and has no explanation except that he wanted to. Can he fill out his card this way? [Jerry Fusselman] Would you please be more specific about his hand? [Robert Frick] 4. They agree to play 5-card majors, an opening 1 Diamond shows 4, and an opening 1 Club shows 3. Then, in the face of 4-4-3-2, they open 1 Club and the opponents are told this shows 3. Is that fair? [Jerry Fusselman] I would say no, this is MI. This has probably happened to many of us in the US, including me. The example is explicitly discussed by the ACBL, and though some would say that the opponents should protect themselves from this surprise, I disagree. It is easier to require the Opening side to correctly announce their methods than for the other side to deduce impossibility. [Robert Frick] 5. Playing opening 15-17 HCP no trumps opens 1 NT with only 14 HCP. If he miscounted points, fine. If he forgot his agreement, fine. If he has a good hand that really has the strength of 15 HCP (for example, all of the tens), fine. If he decided to psyche? Fine. But if he did it because he likes to open 1NT with 14 HCP? I have a problem with that. [Jerry Fusselman] Would you please be more specific about his hand? From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 09:32:37 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 09:32:37 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> Message-ID: <001101d04442$f69c40b0$e3d4c210$@online.no> > Robert Frick > Really, the examples show an obvious awareness of L40C1. The point is that > L40C1 is a band-aid, and in practice not easily applied. We can add more band- > aids or attack the underlying problem. > > > Or, to try to take you seriously, last night a player led the 5 from A753, his > partner describing it as 4th best. He claimed to make a mistake. His partner, > his wife, would have a better awareness than the opponents of how often he > makes a mistake. According to you, that kicks in L40C1. Are you saying I should > have ruled against him? [Sven Pran] Of course you should! Jerry has gone into your examples more detailed that I bothered to do. The main point of Law 40C1 is that a player is free to make whatever (legal) call he wants, including psychic calls, provided that opponents have the same (or better) foundation to understand the call as has his partner. If his partner has reason to understand something that is hidden from opponents then we have a clear case of misinformation and the Director is supposed to rule accordingly and adjust the result if he finds that opponents have been damaged from the misinformation. Your assertion that at some places Law 40C1 is not applied seriously scares me. If that is correct then they are not playing bridge at those places, instead they are playing some other game invented locally. From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 09:40:23 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:40:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54D87277.7030003@skynet.be> Robert Frick schreef: > > 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. They agree to > play odd-even discards; the house player knows the beginner doesn't > know what those mean. What should the opponents be told about > discards when they ask? > This one is not like the others. This one is cheating. The pro is deliberately misleading his opponents. > > 2. Someone (my parter, actually), agrees to play that a weak two bids > show 2 of the top 3 honors, even though this is not good bridge. > Then, when she realizes it is not good bridge, she opens a weak two > with only one of the top three honors. Is it okay that the opps are > told she has two of the top three? > This one looks like a change of system, with one player forgetting to tell the other that he has changed it. Misexplanation. > > 3. Their card says 10+ for overcalls. He overcalls with 8 HCP, and > has no explanation except that he wanted to. Can he fill out his card > this way? > Yes. Whether he should change his card is another matter. > > 4. They agree to play 5-card majors, an opening 1 Diamond shows 4, > and an opening 1 Club shows 3. Then, in the face of 4-4-3-2, they > open 1 Club and the opponents are told this shows 3. Is that fair? > No. If one fails to see that diamonds four means clubs two, and one discovers this only when first holding a 4432, and one decides to open clubs, then the card was incorrectly filled. > > 5. Playing opening 15-17 HCP no trumps opens 1 NT with only 14 HCP. > If he miscounted points, fine. If he forgot his agreement, fine. If > he has a good hand that really has the strength of 15 HCP (for > example, all of the tens), fine. If he decided to psyche? Fine. But > if he did it because he likes to open 1NT with 14 HCP? I have a > problem with that. > So do I. > > There is a common theme here, of course. The current laws require > only that players describe their agreement. It does not require them > to follow their agreement or explain what they actually play. Yes, but the TD has the power (even the obligation) to rule misinformation rather than misbid, if he believes the card is filled in without having thought it through. Although, certainly in the last case and to some degree in the others, I don't believe there can be a clear case of damage. The correct info is not 14, or even 14-18, the correct info is probably 14+to17-. And when bidding over this, you cannot convince me that you would have bid over the second and not the first explanation. When playing, you might convince me that the point count influenced your action, but only if it is really clear. After all, we should all be aware that 15-17 sometimes includes 14, no? It could be one of the other reasons after all. Herman. > _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 09:43:42 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 09:43:42 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> Message-ID: <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: > > You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the announced > understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of > the deviation than have the opponents (The very first sentence in that law). > > Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated > deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the deviations > become part of the partnership (implied) understandings and must be > announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. > All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you know he has done this more than once? Because they tell you? The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does not tell the TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. Herman. > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 11:23:55 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:23:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> Message-ID: <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran schreef: > > > > You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the announced > > understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be > > aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The very first sentence in > that law). > > > > Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated > > deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the > > deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings and > > must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. > > > > All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you know he > has done this more than once? Because they tell you? > The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does not tell the > TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. > > Herman. > > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. [Sven Pran] Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be overwhelming, otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. (There will almost always exist evidence giving at least 1% probability for misbid.) From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 11:34:34 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 11:34:34 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> Message-ID: <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran schreef: >>> >>> You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the announced >>> understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be >>> aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The very first sentence > in >> that law). >>> >>> Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated >>> deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the >>> deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings and >>> must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. >>> >> >> All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you know > he >> has done this more than once? Because they tell you? >> The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does not > tell the >> TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. >> >> Herman. >>> As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be overwhelming, > otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. (There will almost always > exist evidence giving at least 1% probability for misbid.) > Indeed Sven, but then you always rule against the bidder? Whereas from your previous mail I concluded you always rule in bidder's favour? What Robert was asking was whether the TD should accept this. All you seem to be doing is cite two laws, one which says this is allowed, and one which seems to say this is not allowed. Not very helpful, don't you agree? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 9 14:22:04 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:22:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54D87277.7030003@skynet.be> References: <54D87277.7030003@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 09.02.2015 09:40, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Robert Frick schreef: >> >> 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. They agree to >> play odd-even discards; the house player knows the beginner doesn't >> know what those mean. What should the opponents be told about >> discards when they ask? >> > > This one is not like the others. This one is cheating. The pro is > deliberately misleading his opponents. > >> >> 2. Someone (my parter, actually), agrees to play that a weak two bids >> show 2 of the top 3 honors, even though this is not good bridge. >> Then, when she realizes it is not good bridge, she opens a weak two >> with only one of the top three honors. Is it okay that the opps are >> told she has two of the top three? >> > > This one looks like a change of system, with one player forgetting to > tell the other that he has changed it. Misexplanation. AG : I agree with Herman on all points, excepted this one. Apparently, the lady has decided to open a weak two on some nonsystemic hand, without telling her parnter. So, their agreement wasn't changed. However, the pair would thereafter have to decide whether this is system, and if they decide it isn't, then the proviso about 'repeated violations' comes into action. And IMO 'twice' is repeated. This might also be the case with the 1NT opening. Saying 'I felt like doing it' encompasses cases when the correct explanation won't be politically correct, like 'I hogged the hand late in the session because my partner seemed miles away' or 'I thought it would be a good idea to see my weak LHO on lead'. That is strategy, and shan't be disallowed. However, repeated violations etc. There are ways to tell such things honestly on the CC. I know of a pair who wrote down in the 'psyches' box : 'only when angry'. The biggest problem IMO is with facultative bids. Playing undisciplined preempts, you might at times decide that it's the wrong time to do so (e.g. you're obviously leading in the match). If you have a common understanding about 'good' and 'wrong' times, it should be mentioned in some way ; but what if your philosophy is that you'll randomly decide whether to loose-preempt or not ? (and I think this is good bridge) Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 9 14:24:17 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:24:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no>" " <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> Message-ID: <4fe6b6a63dad80ca4e86fb472c249c6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.02.2015 11:23, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran schreef: >> > >> > You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the announced >> > understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be >> > aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The very first sentence > in >> that law). >> > >> > Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated >> > deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the >> > deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings and >> > must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. >> > >> >> All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you >> know > he >> has done this more than once? Because they tell you? >> The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does not > tell the >> TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. >> >> Herman. >> > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. > > [Sven Pran] > Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be > overwhelming, > otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. (There will almost > always > exist evidence giving at least 1% probability for misbid.) > That doesn't work. What you're effectively doing here is requiring that every misbid be penalized. Can hardly be enforced. (what about mispulls, by the way ?) > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 9 14:37:11 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:37:11 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> " <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no>" <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.02.2015 11:34, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Sven Pran schreef: >>> Herman De Wael >>> Sven Pran schreef: >>>> >>>> You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the >>>> announced >>>> understandings provided that his partner has no more reason to be >>>> aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The very first >>>> sentence >> in >>> that law). >>>> >>>> Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated >>>> deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the >>>> deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings >>>> and >>>> must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed understandings. >>>> >>> >>> All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you >>> know >> he >>> has done this more than once? Because they tell you? >>> The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does >>> not >> tell the >>> TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. >>> >>> Herman. >>>> As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than >> Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. >> >> I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be >> overwhelming, >> otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. (There will almost >> always >> exist evidence giving at least 1% probability for misbid.) >> > > Indeed Sven, but then you always rule against the bidder? > Whereas from your previous mail I concluded you always rule in bidder's > favour? > I will give one interesting case. 1S D 2D* p 2H p 4S * systemically, transfer to hearts. Responder had approximately JTxx - x - AJxxxx - Kx. Did the player forget his system ? No. Did he psyche ? No. Did he decide his system was wrong ? No. The explanation was that he didn't see the double. (the systemic bid after the double is a FJ of 3D) How do I know ? Usual reason : it was me. Can I provide any absolute proof of the source of error ? Of course not. The TD did what he had to do : he checked after the deal that the CC mentioned transfers in that situation, that my bidding under the claimed circumstances matched my hand, and decided that this was sufficient proof that there was no MI. Now, Sven, you want it to be otherwise. Please tell me where in TFLB it is written that all participants should have perfect eyesight. My right-eye field of view is somewhat restricted. Now of course you can call this 'not paying enough attention to the game', but this has never led to score adjustments. Best regards Alain PS : HdW was present and unformally confirmed the ruling (there had been no appeal) From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 9 14:48:32 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 14:48:32 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> " <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no>" <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be> <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <54D8BAB0.6040504@skynet.be> agot schreef: > > > I will give one interesting case. > > 1S D 2D* p > 2H p 4S > > * systemically, transfer to hearts. > > Responder had approximately JTxx - x - AJxxxx - Kx. > > Did the player forget his system ? No. > Did he psyche ? No. > Did he decide his system was wrong ? No. > > The explanation was that he didn't see the double. (the systemic bid > after the double is a FJ of 3D) > > How do I know ? > Usual reason : it was me. > > Can I provide any absolute proof of the source of error ? Of course not. > > The TD did what he had to do : he checked after the deal that the CC > mentioned transfers in that situation, that my bidding under the claimed > circumstances matched my hand, and decided that this was sufficient > proof that there was no MI. > (..) > > PS : HdW was present and unformally confirmed the ruling (there had been > no appeal) I agree with my informal confirmation. One point we should mention: of course when the 2D bid is explained, this is MI to Alain, making him notice the double. However, I would like to present as a guideline the following: when a player is next to bid, even if he has misseen a previous bid, all bids that have been made is automatic AI to him, no matter how he came to notice them (that is, the second time around - not the first time, he should pay attention and if he hasn't, he should not be awoken by UI). Thereafter, considering that his own system is also AI, he is allowed to know what his previous misbid showed and attempt a rectification on that basis. In the example above, Alain should be allowed to bid 4S,of course without revealing he does not actually have hearts. If partner changes to 5H, too bad. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 15:54:30 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 15:54:30 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <4fe6b6a63dad80ca4e86fb472c249c6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no>" " <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <4fe6b6a63dad80ca4e86fb472c249c6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> agot > Sendt: 9. februar 2015 14:24 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations > > Le 09.02.2015 11:23, Sven Pran a ?crit : > >> Herman De Wael > >> Sven Pran schreef: > >> > > >> > You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the > >> > announced understandings provided that his partner has no more > >> > reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The > >> > very first sentence > > in > >> that law). > >> > > >> > Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated > >> > deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the > >> > deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings > >> > and must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed > understandings. > >> > > >> > >> All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you > >> know > > he > >> has done this more than once? Because they tell you? > >> The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does > >> not > > tell the > >> TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. > >> > >> Herman. > >> > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than > > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > > > > I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be > > overwhelming, otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. (There > > will almost always exist evidence giving at least 1% probability for > > misbid.) > > > > That doesn't work. What you're effectively doing here is requiring that > every misbid be penalized. Can hardly be enforced. (what about mispulls, > by the way ?) [Sven Pran] Not at all. When I get convinced at the table that it was a genuine misbid (or mispull) I rule so. And this happens more often than you might believe. Frankly, based on my experience and excluding those situations where misinformation is accepted right away by the offending side I believe I rule misbid even more often than misinformation. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 16:01:58 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:01:58 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> " <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no>" <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be> <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000601d04479$5a9a2f10$0fce8d30$@online.no> agot > Sendt: 9. februar 2015 14:37 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations > > Le 09.02.2015 11:34, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > Sven Pran schreef: > >>> Herman De Wael > >>> Sven Pran schreef: > >>>> > >>>> You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the > >>>> announced understandings provided that his partner has no more > >>>> reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The > >>>> very first sentence > >> in > >>> that law). > >>>> > >>>> Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated > >>>> deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the > >>>> deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings > >>>> and must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed > >>>> understandings. > >>>> > >>> > >>> All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do > >>> you know > >> he > >>> has done this more than once? Because they tell you? > >>> The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does > >>> not > >> tell the > >>> TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. > >>> > >>> Herman. > >>>> As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. > >> > >> [Sven Pran] > >> Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather > >> than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. > >> > >> I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be > >> overwhelming, otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. > >> (There will almost always exist evidence giving at least 1% > >> probability for misbid.) > >> > > > > Indeed Sven, but then you always rule against the bidder? > > Whereas from your previous mail I concluded you always rule in > > bidder's favour? > > > > > I will give one interesting case. > > 1S D 2D* p > 2H p 4S > > * systemically, transfer to hearts. > > Responder had approximately JTxx - x - AJxxxx - Kx. > > Did the player forget his system ? No. > Did he psyche ? No. > Did he decide his system was wrong ? No. > > The explanation was that he didn't see the double. (the systemic bid after the > double is a FJ of 3D) > > How do I know ? > Usual reason : it was me. > > Can I provide any absolute proof of the source of error ? Of course not. > > The TD did what he had to do : he checked after the deal that the CC mentioned > transfers in that situation, that my bidding under the claimed circumstances > matched my hand, and decided that this was sufficient proof that there was no > MI. > > Now, Sven, you want it to be otherwise. Please tell me where in TFLB it is > written that all participants should have perfect eyesight. My right-eye field of > view is somewhat restricted. > > Now of course you can call this 'not paying enough attention to the game', but > this has never led to score adjustments. > > Best regards > > Alain [Sven Pran] I don't see any problem. Given the information you provide here I would have ruled the same. Only on one very minor detail would I probably have acted differently from your Director: I would have inspected the CC right away, not waited until after the deal. But I would of course not have commented on the CC until later. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 16:07:25 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 16:07:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54D8BAB0.6040504@skynet.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> " <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no>" <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be> <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54D8BAB0.6040504@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000801d0447a$1e6e0510$5b4a0f30$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sendt: 9. februar 2015 14:49 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations > > agot schreef: > > > > > > I will give one interesting case. > > > > 1S D 2D* p > > 2H p 4S > > > > * systemically, transfer to hearts. > > > > Responder had approximately JTxx - x - AJxxxx - Kx. > > > > Did the player forget his system ? No. > > Did he psyche ? No. > > Did he decide his system was wrong ? No. > > > > The explanation was that he didn't see the double. (the systemic bid > > after the double is a FJ of 3D) > > > > How do I know ? > > Usual reason : it was me. > > > > Can I provide any absolute proof of the source of error ? Of course not. > > > > The TD did what he had to do : he checked after the deal that the CC > > mentioned transfers in that situation, that my bidding under the > > claimed circumstances matched my hand, and decided that this was > > sufficient proof that there was no MI. > > > (..) > > > > PS : HdW was present and unformally confirmed the ruling (there had > > been no appeal) > > I agree with my informal confirmation. > > One point we should mention: of course when the 2D bid is explained, this is MI > to Alain, making him notice the double. However, I would like to present as a > guideline the following: when a player is next to bid, even if he has misseen a > previous bid, all bids that have been made is automatic AI to him, no matter > how he came to notice them (that is, the second time around - not the first > time, he should pay attention and if he hasn't, he should not be awoken by UI). > Thereafter, considering that his own system is also AI, he is allowed to know > what his previous misbid showed and attempt a rectification on that basis. > In the example above, Alain should be allowed to bid 4S,of course without > revealing he does not actually have hearts. If partner changes to 5H, too bad. > > Herman. [Sven Pran] I fully agree with all of this. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 9 22:37:50 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:37:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54D8BAB0.6040504@skynet.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> \\\" <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no>\\\" <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <54D88D3A.3070004@skynet.be>" <4ca15a20f614db33089df7c61d4956a9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <54D8BAB0.6040504@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 09.02.2015 14:48, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> >> >> I will give one interesting case. >> >> 1S D 2D* p >> 2H p 4S >> >> * systemically, transfer to hearts. >> >> Responder had approximately JTxx - x - AJxxxx - Kx. >> >> Did the player forget his system ? No. >> Did he psyche ? No. >> Did he decide his system was wrong ? No. >> >> The explanation was that he didn't see the double. (the systemic bid >> after the double is a FJ of 3D) >> >> How do I know ? >> Usual reason : it was me. >> >> Can I provide any absolute proof of the source of error ? Of course >> not. >> >> The TD did what he had to do : he checked after the deal that the CC >> mentioned transfers in that situation, that my bidding under the >> claimed >> circumstances matched my hand, and decided that this was sufficient >> proof that there was no MI. >> > (..) >> >> PS : HdW was present and unformally confirmed the ruling (there had >> been >> no appeal) > > I agree with my informal confirmation. Good news ;-) > > One point we should mention: of course when the 2D bid is explained, > this is MI to Alain UI, I guess , making him notice the double. However, I would like > to present as a guideline the following: when a player is next to bid, > even if he has misseen a previous bid, all bids that have been made is > automatic AI to him, no matter how he came to notice them (that is, the > second time around - not the first time, he should pay attention and if > he hasn't, he should not be awoken by UI). Thereafter, considering that > his own system is also AI, he is allowed to know what his previous > misbid showed and attempt a rectification on that basis. > In the example above, Alain should be allowed to bid 4S,of course > without revealing he does not actually have hearts. If partner changes > to 5H, too bad. Correcting a known fit to another at the five-level ? Big joke. Some might argue that the 4S bid (instead of, say, 2S, which would have been forcing) could be an "attempt at rectification". Glad to read that this would be allowed. (in fact, I think that 4S, over an ostensibly-natural 2H, is a good bid) From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 9 22:39:17 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 22:39:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no>\\\" \\\" <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no>" <4fe6b6a63dad80ca4e86fb472c249c6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 09.02.2015 15:54, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > agot >> Sendt: 9. februar 2015 14:24 >> Til: blml at rtflb.org >> Emne: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations >> >> Le 09.02.2015 11:23, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> >> Herman De Wael >> >> Sven Pran schreef: >> >> > >> >> > You should notice that a player is free to deviate from the >> >> > announced understandings provided that his partner has no more >> >> > reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents (The >> >> > very first sentence >> > in >> >> that law). >> >> > >> >> > Once the partner has such reason, for instance because of repeated >> >> > deviations or simply because of discussions between them, the >> >> > deviations become part of the partnership (implied) understandings >> >> > and must be announced/disclosed the same as their agreed >> understandings. >> >> > >> >> >> >> All very well Sven, but how do you, as TD, recognize this? How do you >> >> know >> > he >> >> has done this more than once? Because they tell you? >> >> The Lawbook tells the players what they can and cannot do. It does >> >> not >> > tell the >> >> TD how to recognize what the players have done off the table. >> >> >> >> Herman. >> >> > As far as I understood all your examples included such deviations. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Law 21B1b: The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than >> > Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. >> > >> > I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be >> > overwhelming, otherwise this clause in the laws is meaningless. (There >> > will almost always exist evidence giving at least 1% probability for >> > misbid.) >> > >> >> That doesn't work. What you're effectively doing here is requiring >> that >> every misbid be penalized. Can hardly be enforced. (what about >> mispulls, >> by the way ?) > > [Sven Pran] > Not at all. > When I get convinced at the table that it was a genuine misbid (or > mispull) I rule so. > And this happens more often than you might believe. > Frankly, based on my experience and excluding those situations where > misinformation is accepted right away by the offending side I believe > I rule misbid even more often than misinformation. Okay, but that's not what you're saying in the third-to-last paragraph. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- A. From svenpran at online.no Mon Feb 9 23:16:50 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:16:50 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no>\\\" \\\" <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no>" <4fe6b6a63dad80ca4e86fb472c249c6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> Message-ID: <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> Agot [...] > >> That doesn't work. What you're effectively doing here is requiring > >> that every misbid be penalized. Can hardly be enforced. (what about > >> mispulls, by the way ?) > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Not at all. > > When I get convinced at the table that it was a genuine misbid (or > > mispull) I rule so. > > And this happens more often than you might believe. > > Frankly, based on my experience and excluding those situations where > > misinformation is accepted right away by the offending side I believe > > I rule misbid even more often than misinformation. > > Okay, but that's not what you're saying in the third-to-last paragraph. [Sven Pran] And why not? My contribution concerns the clause "absent evidence to the contrary". This clause does not specify or imply any requirement on the weight of such evidence, literally it says that it is sufficient of some such evidence exists, however weak it might be. I simply argue that the Director shall not accept "evidence to the contrary" unless it is strong enough to significantly override other evidence. Once you understand this I trust you will agree that this is exactly what I have said all the time? From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 10 03:37:46 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:37:46 -0500 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 21:52:54 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I'll put your summary first. > > [Robert Frick] There is a common theme here, of course. The current > laws require only that players describe their agreement. It does not > require them to follow their agreement or explain what they actually > play. > > [Jerry Fusselman] Many years ago, I lobbied on BLML for replacing > "agreement" in the laws with "understandings." Fortunately, this > occurred almost completely, though it was not due to my efforts. The > laws require explaining understandings, not agreements. Nevertheless, > you given us five great examples. > > [Jerry Fusselman] If a situation occurs in which the two partners > have different understandings of the partnership understandings, then > we have a situation where the director should generally rule MI. Call > this _rule-of-thumb 1_. No matter what either partner says, we're not > exactly playing bridge here. I believe that the laws protect the > opponents from this kind of abuse. What if I temporarily forget my system, temporarily creating the situation where my partner have different understandings. According to the laws, this is not to be ruled MI. > > [Robert Frick] 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. > They agree to play odd-even discards; the house player knows the > beginner doesn't know what those mean. What should the opponents be > told about discards when they ask? > > [Jerry Fusselman] This player, an "expert," has almost guaranteed > causing MI by agreeing to play a method he knows his partner does not > understand. It is not easy for either partner to explain this > understanding without creating MI. I don't think I could manage it > even if I am considered the expert. The expert should not have caused > this situation, and director should rule MI with regularity here. > Directors should watch for this kind of violation. So the problem is the expert knowingly doing this? What if the expert agrees with the beginner to play standard leads and discards, honestly thinking that the beginner knows this? Then learns that the beginner doesn't know stanard leads and discards. Is this now okay? It is not so easy to watch for this kind of violation. The expert house player,playing with the novice, overcalls 1 Spade, psyching this bid. The opponents are damaged by this psyche. Do you rule against the expert house player? > > [Robert Frick] 2. Someone (my parter, actually), agrees to play that a > weak two bids show 2 of the top 3 honors, even though this is not good > bridge. Then, when she realizes it is not good bridge, she opens a > weak two with only one of the top three honors. Is it okay that the > opps are told she has two of the top three? > > [Jerry Fusselman] That would be MI. If a player agrees to play > something she knows that she is likely to violate, then by > rule-of-thumb 1, it is MI when the "understanding" is disclosed. > > [Robert Frick] 3. Their card says 10+ for overcalls. He overcalls with > 8 HCP, and has no explanation except that he wanted to. Can he fill > out his card this way? > > [Jerry Fusselman] Would you please be more specific about his hand? The point is, there was nothing special about the hand. It was an ordinary 8 HCP point hand. I asked him why he overcalled, and he said he wanted to. If he wanted to then, he undoubtably did it a lot. > > [Robert Frick] 4. They agree to play 5-card majors, an opening 1 > Diamond shows 4, and an opening 1 Club shows 3. Then, in the face of > 4-4-3-2, they open 1 Club and the opponents are told this shows 3. Is > that fair? > > [Jerry Fusselman] I would say no, this is MI. This has probably > happened to many of us in the US, including me. The example is > explicitly discussed by the ACBL, and though some would say that the > opponents should protect themselves from this surprise, I disagree. > It is easier to require the Opening side to correctly announce their > methods than for the other side to deduce impossibility. Yes, but usually the problem is phrased differently and everyone gives the opposite answer. You (like these players) face a situation where no bid describes your hand correctly. So you (like these players) choose the bid that comes closest to describing your hand. You expect the director to rule MI against you? > > [Robert Frick] 5. Playing opening 15-17 HCP no trumps opens 1 NT with > only 14 HCP. If he miscounted points, fine. If he forgot his > agreement, fine. If he has a good hand that really has the strength of > 15 HCP (for example, all of the tens), fine. If he decided to psyche? > Fine. But if he did it because he likes to open 1NT with 14 HCP? I > have a problem with that. > > [Jerry Fusselman] Would you please be more specific about his hand? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From rfrick at rfrick.info Tue Feb 10 03:49:55 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 21:49:55 -0500 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> Message-ID: It seems like we have good consensus how how to rule. It's just the rules seem to not give me the support I want. In one recent case, the partners agreed to play Roman Mud. East led the 9 from 942, which is not Roman Mud, because he thought it was more descriptive -- a low card might be interpreted as low from a suit with an honor. This explanation damaged declarer. I am glad to hear that my desire to rule MI was correct. Oddly enough, I could not convince the pair that their explanation was not a correct description of their understanding. They seemed to feel, that because his partner had no more reason to suspect a deviation than declarer (which was true), that they were allowed to do this. Perhaps because the laws say this. The director who made the ruling ruled in their favor, BTW. From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 10 06:37:13 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:37:13 -0600 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations Message-ID: [Robert Frick] On Sun, 08 Feb 2015 21:52:54 -0500, Jerry Fusselman wrote: > I'll put your summary first. > > [Robert Frick] There is a common theme here, of course. The current > laws require only that players describe their agreement. It does not > require them to follow their agreement or explain what they actually > play. > > [Jerry Fusselman] Many years ago, I lobbied on BLML for replacing > "agreement" in the laws with "understandings." Fortunately, this > occurred almost completely, though it was not due to my efforts. The > laws require explaining understandings, not agreements. Nevertheless, > you given us five great examples. > > [Jerry Fusselman] If a situation occurs in which the two partners > have different understandings of the partnership understandings, then > we have a situation where the director should generally rule MI. Call > this _rule-of-thumb 1_. No matter what either partner says, we're not > exactly playing bridge here. I believe that the laws protect the > opponents from this kind of abuse. [Robert Frick] What if I temporarily forget my system, temporarily creating the situation where my partner have different understandings. According to the laws, this is not to be ruled MI. [Jerry Fusselman] I don't think so. Maybe you can quote the law(s) you have in mind. In your example, I think it depends on how often you forget in the heat of the moment. If you usually forget at the table, then almost any explanation is MI. If you or your partner says that you play Lebensohl, but one of you has no idea how it works, then almost any explanation is MI. These are examples of what I call in this thread rule-of-thumb 1. > > [Robert Frick] 1. An expert house player is playing with a beginner. > They agree to play odd-even discards; the house player knows the > beginner doesn't know what those mean. What should the opponents be > told about discards when they ask? > > [Jerry Fusselman] This player, an "expert," has almost guaranteed > causing MI by agreeing to play a method he knows his partner does not > understand. It is not easy for either partner to explain this > understanding without creating MI. I don't think I could manage it > even if I am considered the expert. The expert should not have caused > this situation, and director should rule MI with regularity here. > Directors should watch for this kind of violation. [Robert Frick] So the problem is the expert knowingly doing this? [Jerry Fusselman] You are the one who said he was an "expert house player." I was using one of your assumptions. I was not trying for full generality this time. The expert part is not crucial. [Robert Frick] What if the expert agrees with the beginner to play standard leads and discards, honestly thinking that the beginner knows this? Then learns that the beginner doesn't know stanard leads and discards. Is this now okay? [Jerry Fusselman] No, it is not okay. If you say you are playing standard leads and discards, but one of you is not, then almost any explanation is MI. It is your job to be able to explain your understandings to the opponents. [Robert Frick] It is not so easy to watch for this kind of violation. The expert house player,playing with the novice, overcalls 1 Spade, psyching this bid. The opponents are damaged by this psyche. Do you rule against the expert house player? [Jerry Fusselman] How the rules apply to pure psyches confuses me---also what counts as damage after a psyche confuses---so I'll pass on this. But this seems like a totally different question to me. > > [Robert Frick] 3. Their card says 10+ for overcalls. He overcalls with > 8 HCP, and has no explanation except that he wanted to. Can he fill > out his card this way? > > [Jerry Fusselman] Would you please be more specific about his hand? [Robert Frick] The point is, there was nothing special about the hand. It was an ordinary 8 HCP point hand. I asked him why he overcalled, and he said he wanted to. If he wanted to then, he undoubtably did it a lot. [Jerry Fusselman] OK, if he would overcall most 8-HCP hands (with a good five-card suit---are you implying?), then the description looks wrong. Therefore, it would be MI. However, I should have asked you about the auction too. If the auction was (1C)-1S, then there is no MI on his card, in my opinion. General bridge knowledge should be that 1S over 1C is worth pushing for. Or if there was a question about the overcall, the explainer should explain an extra friskiness for 1S over 1C. > > [Robert Frick] 4. They agree to play 5-card majors, an opening 1 > Diamond shows 4, and an opening 1 Club shows 3. Then, in the face of > 4-4-3-2, they open 1 Club and the opponents are told this shows 3. Is > that fair? > > [Jerry Fusselman] I would say no, this is MI. This has probably > happened to many of us in the US, including me. The example is > explicitly discussed by the ACBL, and though some would say that the > opponents should protect themselves from this surprise, I disagree. > It is easier to require the Opening side to correctly announce their > methods than for the other side to deduce impossibility. [Robert Frick] Yes, but usually the problem is phrased differently and everyone gives the opposite answer. [Jerry Fusselman] Not sure exactly what you mean by "opposite answer." [Robert Frick] You (like these players) face a situation where no bid describes your hand correctly. So you (like these players) choose the bid that comes closest to describing your hand. [Jerry Fusselman] I simplify your question here by assuming no mistakes by our pair up to now. Well, if our system can't possibly cover the hand that partner could have and does have, then in general, there will usually be MI. This is not the end of the world. We should accept the ruling, and next time, give an accurate description of the kind of hand partner could be showing with the call. [Robert Frick] You expect the director to rule MI against you? [Jerry Fusselman] Yup, he should. Next time, I hope to describe our methods better. For example, I might simply add the phrase "or he might be opening 1C with only two clubs with exactly 4432 shape. In the ACBL now, by the way, 1C is defined to be a natural bid despite the possibility of a two-card club suit in this one situation. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Feb 10 07:11:34 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:11:34 +1100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> Message-ID: Alain Gottche iner: I will give one interesting case. 1S D 2D* p 2H p 4S * systemically, transfer to hearts. Responder had approximately JTxx - x - AJxxxx - Kx. Did the player forget his system ? No. Did he psyche ? No. Did he decide his system was wrong ? No. The explanation was that he didn't see the double. (the systemic bid after the double is a FJ of 3D) How do I know ? Usual reason : it was me. Can I provide any absolute proof of the source of error ? Of course not. The TD did what he had to do : he checked after the deal that the CC mentioned transfers in that situation, that my bidding under the claimed circumstances matched my hand, and decided that this was sufficient proof that there was no MI. (..) PS : HdW was present and unformally confirmed the ruling (there had been no appeal) Herman De Wael: I agree with my informal confirmation. One point we should mention: of course when the 2D bid is explained, this is MI to Alain, making him notice the double. However, I would like to present as a guideline the following: when a player is next to bid, even if he has misseen a previous bid, all bids that have been made is automatic AI to him, no matter how he came to notice them (that is, the second time around - not the first time, he should pay attention and if he hasn't, he should not be awoken by UI). Thereafter, considering that his own system is also AI, he is allowed to know what his previous misbid showed and attempt a rectification on that basis. In the example above, Alain should be allowed to bid 4S,of course without revealing he does not actually have hearts. If partner changes to 5H, too bad. Richard Hills: Herman's "present as a guideline" should more accurately be described as "a proposed fundamental change to the 2017 Law 75". However, I also agree with the informal confirmation that Alain accidentally made a very legal Law 75C misbid. And I further informally confirm that Alain did not infract the Law 75A / Law 73C requirement to "carefully avoid taking any advantage", as I do not see any logical alternative to Alain's rebid of 4S. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Robert Frick wrote: > It seems like we have good consensus how how to rule. It's just the rules > seem to not give me the support I want. > > In one recent case, the partners agreed to play Roman Mud. East led the 9 > from 942, which is not Roman Mud, because he thought it was more > descriptive -- a low card might be interpreted as low from a suit with an > honor. > > This explanation damaged declarer. I am glad to hear that my desire to > rule MI was correct. > > Oddly enough, I could not convince the pair that their explanation was not > a correct description of their understanding. They seemed to feel, that > because his partner had no more reason to suspect a deviation than declarer > (which was true), that they were allowed to do this. Perhaps because the > laws say this. > > The director who made the ruling ruled in their favor, BTW. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150210/8fc9e7fe/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 10 10:48:28 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:48:28 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> Message-ID: <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> permit me to quib on one point here, Richard: Richard Hills schreef: > Alain Gottche iner: > I will give one interesting case. > > 1S D 2D* p > 2H p 4S > > * systemically, transfer to hearts. > Richard Hills: > Herman's "present as a guideline" should more accurately be described as > "a proposed fundamental change to the 2017 Law 75". > However, I also agree with the informal confirmation that Alain > accidentally made a very legal Law 75C misbid. And I further informally > confirm that Alain did not infract the Law 75A / Law 73C requirement to > "carefully avoid taking any advantage", as I do not see any logical > alternative to Alain's rebid of 4S. We did not get the actual cards here, so it's difficult to say there are no logical alternatives. However, consider the case with one small modification: Alain did see the double, and he forgot his system. Now the alert or explanation awakens him, not to the double, but to his system. Now do you rule the same, or are you more willing to check Alain's hand? My point being that the alert is always UI (and not MI, as I misprinted in my previous message - sorry about that). It is merely the noticing of the double, combined with a presumed knowledge of his system, which turns this UI into AI. After which we do not look for LAs anymore. Of course this means we need to believe Alain about not noticing the double. Only the Director at the table can safely do that. OK with my quibble, Richard? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 11 12:36:12 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:36:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no>\\\" <4fe6b6a63dad80ca4e86fb472c249c6b@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no>" " <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> Message-ID: <8b36fea3e98e62af2e32cc1ace0faa12@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 09.02.2015 23:16, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > Agot > [...] >> >> That doesn't work. What you're effectively doing here is requiring >> >> that every misbid be penalized. Can hardly be enforced. (what about >> >> mispulls, by the way ?) >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Not at all. >> > When I get convinced at the table that it was a genuine misbid (or >> > mispull) I rule so. >> > And this happens more often than you might believe. >> > Frankly, based on my experience and excluding those situations where >> > misinformation is accepted right away by the offending side I believe >> > I rule misbid even more often than misinformation. >> >> Okay, but that's not what you're saying in the third-to-last >> paragraph. > > [Sven Pran] > And why not? > > My contribution concerns the clause "absent evidence to the contrary". > > This clause does not specify or imply any requirement on the weight of > such evidence, literally it says that it is sufficient of some such > evidence exists, however weak it might be. > > I simply argue that the Director shall not accept "evidence to the > contrary" unless it is strong enough to significantly override other > evidence. > > Once you understand this I trust you will agree that this is exactly > what I have said all the time? > Perhaps not. You also wrote : "The Director is to presume Mistaken Explanation rather than Mistaken Call in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I take this to mean that the evidence to the contrary must be overwhelming" If it has to be "overwhelming" to be "strong enough", then it will seldom be. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 11 12:42:04 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:42:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 10.02.2015 03:37, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > What if I temporarily forget my system, temporarily creating the > situation where my partner have different understandings. According to > the laws, this is not to be ruled MI. I think there is a linguistic problem here. Among senses for 'understanding', Longman gives : a) the way in which one judges the meaning of something b) a private agreement Forgetting one's system creates a new a), but not a new b). Surely it's b) that the lawmakers had in mind. Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 11 12:47:19 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:47:19 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> " <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no>" <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> Message-ID: <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 10.02.2015 10:48, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > permit me to quib on one point here, Richard: > > Richard Hills schreef: >> Alain Gottche iner: >> I will give one interesting case. >> >> 1S D 2D* p >> 2H p 4S >> >> * systemically, transfer to hearts. >> Richard Hills: >> Herman's "present as a guideline" should more accurately be described >> as >> "a proposed fundamental change to the 2017 Law 75". >> However, I also agree with the informal confirmation that Alain >> accidentally made a very legal Law 75C misbid. And I further >> informally >> confirm that Alain did not infract the Law 75A / Law 73C requirement >> to >> "carefully avoid taking any advantage", as I do not see any logical >> alternative to Alain's rebid of 4S. > > We did not get the actual cards here, so it's difficult to say there > are > no logical alternatives. > However, consider the case with one small modification: Alain did see > the double, and he forgot his system. Now the alert or explanation > awakens him, not to the double, but to his system. Now do you rule the > same, or are you more willing to check Alain's hand? > > My point being that the alert is always UI (and not MI, as I misprinted > in my previous message - sorry about that). It is merely the noticing > of > the double, combined with a presumed knowledge of his system, which > turns this UI into AI. After which we do not look for LAs anymore. > > Of course this means we need to believe Alain about not noticing the > double. Only the Director at the table can safely do that. > You have forgotten one point. This isn't a 2D bid over a double, absent the Transfer agreement, because a classical 2D bid is nonforcing. Whence 'system forgotten' and 'MI' aren't plausible explanations, and 'didn't see and was making a noncompetitive 2/1' is the only plausible explanation. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Thu Feb 12 05:08:40 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:08:40 +1100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: We did not get the actual cards here, so it's difficult to say there are no logical alternatives. Richard Hills: Actually Alain did provide his actual cards; perhaps I erred in my copying-and-pasting. Herman De Wael: However, consider the case with one small modification: Alain did see the double, and he forgot his system. Now the alert or explanation awakens him, not to the double, but to his system. Now do you rule the same, or are you more willing to check Alain's hand? Richard Hills: Good point. For most of two centuries the Ali-Hills partnership have played the Symmetric Relay system with a Strong Club opening bid. But once at an Aussie national championship we played a variant Symmetric Relay system with a Strong Pass opening call. On one board I held as dealer a balanced 6 hcp, and routinely chose an opening Pass. Hashmat alerted and explained my Pass as promising 15+ hcp. So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 75A by bidding in accordance with our former (and future) Strong Club methods. But I also obeyed Law 20 / Law 40 by alerting and explaining Hashmat's calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass methods. Virtue (me avoiding use of UI to pass Hashmat's forcing bid in a notional Strong Club auction) was rewarded when the ensuing final ridiculous contract of 3D was -250 instead of -1100. Herman De Wael: My point being that the alert is always UI (and not MI, as I mis- printed in my previous message - sorry about that). It is merely the noticing of the double, combined with a presumed knowledge of his system, which turns this UI into AI. After which we do not look for LAs anymore. Of course this means we need to believe Alain about not noticing the double. Only the Director at the table can safely do that. OK with my quibble, Richard? Richard Hills: Hello Laurie Kelso? The 2007 Lawbook defines vulnerability as being always AI, but is silent on whether having one's attention being drawn to an unobserved bidding card is AI. At the 2014 Summer Festival of Bridge the Directors controversially ruled UI, with a consequent Law 75A adjusted score of -2300 (one trick in a non-fit of 3Sx). In my opinion this issue should be specifically answered one way or the other in the 2017 Lawbook. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:47 PM, agot wrote: > Le 10.02.2015 10:48, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > permit me to quib on one point here, Richard: > > > > Richard Hills schreef: > >> Alain Gottche iner: > >> I will give one interesting case. > >> > >> 1S D 2D* p > >> 2H p 4S > >> > >> * systemically, transfer to hearts. > >> Richard Hills: > >> Herman's "present as a guideline" should more accurately be described > >> as > >> "a proposed fundamental change to the 2017 Law 75". > >> However, I also agree with the informal confirmation that Alain > >> accidentally made a very legal Law 75C misbid. And I further > >> informally > >> confirm that Alain did not infract the Law 75A / Law 73C requirement > >> to > >> "carefully avoid taking any advantage", as I do not see any logical > >> alternative to Alain's rebid of 4S. > > > > We did not get the actual cards here, so it's difficult to say there > > are > > no logical alternatives. > > However, consider the case with one small modification: Alain did see > > the double, and he forgot his system. Now the alert or explanation > > awakens him, not to the double, but to his system. Now do you rule the > > same, or are you more willing to check Alain's hand? > > > > My point being that the alert is always UI (and not MI, as I misprinted > > in my previous message - sorry about that). It is merely the noticing > > of > > the double, combined with a presumed knowledge of his system, which > > turns this UI into AI. After which we do not look for LAs anymore. > > > > Of course this means we need to believe Alain about not noticing the > > double. Only the Director at the table can safely do that. > > > > > You have forgotten one point. This isn't a 2D bid over a double, absent > the Transfer agreement, because a classical 2D bid is nonforcing. Whence > 'system forgotten' and 'MI' aren't plausible explanations, and 'didn't > see and was making a noncompetitive 2/1' is the only plausible > explanation. > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150212/f593cec5/attachment-0001.html From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Thu Feb 12 11:42:17 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:42:17 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 05:08:40 +0100, Richard Hills wrote: > Hello Laurie Kelso? The 2007 Lawbook defines vulnerability as > being always AI, but is silent on whether having one's attention > being drawn to an unobserved bidding card is AI. At the 2014 > Summer Festival of Bridge the Directors controversially ruled UI, > with a consequent Law 75A adjusted score of -2300 (one trick in > a non-fit of 3Sx). > >> In my opinion this issue should be specifically answered one > way or the other in the 2017 Lawbook. The legal auction is AI: see L16A1a. best regards, Petrus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150212/13771728/attachment.html From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 12 15:46:44 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:46:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 12.02.2015 05:08, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Herman De Wael: > > We did not get the actual cards here, so it's difficult to say there > are > no logical alternatives. > > Richard Hills: > > Actually Alain did provide his actual cards; perhaps I erred in my > copying-and-pasting. > > Herman De Wael: > > However, consider the case with one small modification: Alain did see > the double, and he forgot his system. Now the alert or explanation > awakens him, not to the double, but to his system. Now do you rule the > same, or are you more willing to check Alain's hand? > > Richard Hills: > > Good point. > > For most of two centuries the Ali-Hills partnership have played the > Symmetric Relay system with a Strong Club opening bid. But once at an > Aussie national championship we played a variant Symmetric Relay > system with a Strong Pass opening call. On one board I held as dealer > a balanced 6 hcp, and routinely chose an opening Pass. Hashmat > alerted and explained my Pass as promising 15+ hcp. > > So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 75A by bidding in > accordance with our former (and future) Strong Club methods. But I > also obeyed Law 20 / Law 40 by alerting and explaining Hashmat's > calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass methods. > > This, of course, assumes that you're 100% sure that your partner's explanation isz right and that you are the one to err - an uncommon occurrence. Els,e you fall into the DwS dilemma. From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 13 10:16:23 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 10:16:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 12.02.2015 05:08, Richard Hills a ?crit : >> >> So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 75A by bidding in >> accordance with our former (and future) Strong Club methods. But I >> also obeyed Law 20 / Law 40 by alerting and explaining Hashmat's >> calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass methods. >> >> > > This, of course, assumes that you're 100% sure that your partner's > explanation isz right and that you are the one to err - an uncommon > occurrence. Els,e you fall into the DwS dilemma. There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation is correct; - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be able to prove this; - that you are confident that the director will believe you, since he might rule against you even after having provided the proof you believe you have. I believe this is a highly uncommon occurence, and the dWs dilemma plays every single time. In your story, Richard, you were 100% certain you had erred. I believe you, but could you be 100% certain that the TD would believe you? No, you could not. Let's say you were 99% certain. Yet you acted in the same way that you constantly criticize me for acting. At what point between 99% and 0% certain does your criticism drop away? And if you say: 75%, then what about a player who is 74% certain but claims he was 76% certain. Do you accept his actions or not? That is the biggest problem with your critique of the dWs. The actions of the dWs are acceptable, nay, obligatory, for a player who is certain that he erred. But how can anyone ever be certain? Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 13 12:45:39 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:45:39 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be>" <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 13.02.2015 10:16, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> Le 12.02.2015 05:08, Richard Hills a ?crit : >>> >>> So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 75A by bidding in >>> accordance with our former (and future) Strong Club methods. But I >>> also obeyed Law 20 / Law 40 by alerting and explaining Hashmat's >>> calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass methods. >>> >>> >> >> This, of course, assumes that you're 100% sure that your partner's >> explanation isz right and that you are the one to err - an uncommon >> occurrence. Els,e you fall into the DwS dilemma. > > There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): > - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation is > correct; > - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be able to > prove this; > - that you are confident that the director will believe you, since he > might rule against you even after having provided the proof you believe > you have. > > I believe this is a highly uncommon occurence, and the dWs dilemma > plays > every single time. > > In your story, Richard, you were 100% certain you had erred. I believe > you, but could you be 100% certain that the TD would believe you? No, > you could not. Let's say you were 99% certain. Yet you acted in the > same > way that you constantly criticize me for acting. At what point between > 99% and 0% certain does your criticism drop away? > And if you say: 75%, then what about a player who is 74% certain but > claims he was 76% certain. Do you accept his actions or not? > That is the biggest problem with your critique of the dWs. The actions > of the dWs are acceptable, nay, obligatory, for a player who is certain > that he erred. But how can anyone ever be certain? > > Indeed. And notice that, even if you"re certain, you might be wrong, if partner sounds confident enough to convince you. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Feb 16 03:01:20 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 13:01:20 +1100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael: There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation is correct; - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be able to prove this; Richard Hills: Law 72B1 requires that you do not intentionally commit an infraction. In this case, for example, you tell the truth about your *current* partnership understandings to the very best of your *current* recollection. (No doubt the 2017 Lawbook will clarify that the *only* time pard's explanations are AI to you is so as to give correct explanations of pard's calls.) Herman De Wael: - that you are confident that the director will believe you, since he might rule against you even after having provided the proof you believe you have. [big snip] Richard Hills: Law 72A requires players to ethically obey the Laws, *not* to second-guess the future ruling of a (possibly incompetent) Director. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:45 PM, agot wrote: > Le 13.02.2015 10:16, Herman De Wael a ?crit : > > agot schreef: > >> Le 12.02.2015 05:08, Richard Hills a ?crit : > >>> > >>> So for the rest of the auction I obeyed Law 75A by bidding in > >>> accordance with our former (and future) Strong Club methods. But I > >>> also obeyed Law 20 / Law 40 by alerting and explaining Hashmat's > >>> calls in accordance with our current Strong Pass methods. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> This, of course, assumes that you're 100% sure that your partner's > >> explanation isz right and that you are the one to err - an uncommon > >> occurrence. Els,e you fall into the DwS dilemma. > > > > There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): > > - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation is > > correct; > > - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be able to > > prove this; > > - that you are confident that the director will believe you, since he > > might rule against you even after having provided the proof you believe > > you have. > > > > I believe this is a highly uncommon occurence, and the dWs dilemma > > plays > > every single time. > > > > In your story, Richard, you were 100% certain you had erred. I believe > > you, but could you be 100% certain that the TD would believe you? No, > > you could not. Let's say you were 99% certain. Yet you acted in the > > same > > way that you constantly criticize me for acting. At what point between > > 99% and 0% certain does your criticism drop away? > > And if you say: 75%, then what about a player who is 74% certain but > > claims he was 76% certain. Do you accept his actions or not? > > That is the biggest problem with your critique of the dWs. The actions > > of the dWs are acceptable, nay, obligatory, for a player who is certain > > that he erred. But how can anyone ever be certain? > > > > > > Indeed. And notice that, even if you"re certain, you might be wrong, if > partner sounds confident enough to convince you. > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150216/abb061b1/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Mon Feb 16 09:10:12 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:10:12 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54E1A5E4.2060108@skynet.be> Richard Hills schreef: > Herman De Wael: > There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): > - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation > is correct; > - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be > able to prove this; > Richard Hills: > Law 72B1 requires that you do not intentionally commit an > infraction. In this case, for example, you tell the truth about > your *current* partnership understandings to the very best of > your *current* recollection. I am not concerned with what you should do, but with what the TD should do when you do it. If you agree that it is better to give a constistent explanation, then it is better to tell the TD that your *current* recollection is that partner was correct with his explanation. How is the TD going to say that this is not the case? > (No doubt the 2017 Lawbook will > clarify that the *only* time pard's explanations are AI to you > is so as to give correct explanations of pard's calls.) > Herman De Wael: > - that you are confident that the director will believe you, > since he might rule against you even after having provided the > proof you believe you have. > [big snip] > Richard Hills: > Law 72A requires players to ethically obey the Laws, *not* to > second-guess the future ruling of a (possibly incompetent) > Director. Indeed! Which is why I want to take away this decision from the Director. As no TD is competent enough to get into the head of a possibly lying player. There are two problems with your approach: 1a- if you state that a player must reply honestly, then an honest player will not give a consistent explanation where a dishonest one will. The dishonest player will get away with it, the honest player is at a disavantage. 1b- and if the TD tries to err on the side of caution, he will rule against some players who have given a consistent explanation, and who were neveertheless just following your rule of answering according to their *current* recollection. 2- and what does "ruling against them" actually mean? The players are fully aware that they may have given additional MI, and that they will be ruled against that. But they have also omitted to give their partner UI. Are you going to rule that their partners be banned from using non-existent UI? > Best wishes, > Richard Hills > Really Richard, it amazes me that not more people see what I'm trying to get accross here. A rule which is detrimental to players who follow it while unable to punish players who don't do so, is a bad rule. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Feb 16 19:00:44 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 19:00:44 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> Message-ID: <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 16.02.2015 03:01, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Herman De Wael: > ? > There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): > - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation > is correct; > - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be > able to prove this; > > Richard Hills: > ? > Law 72B1 requires that you do not intentionally commit an > infraction. In this case, for example, you tell the truth about > your *current* partnership understandings to the very best of > your *current* recollection. (No doubt the 2017 Lawbook will > clarify that the *only* time pard's explanations are AI to you > is so as to give correct explanations of pard's calls.) > ? I agree that this would be an advance. And, you see, that's exactly what Herman said : when you seem to remember your system because of partner's explanations, explain according to this. The problem being how certain this recollection must be, and dwhether it is at all possible to speak of certainty, human minds being what they are. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 17 09:17:33 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 09:17:33 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be> <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 16.02.2015 03:01, Richard Hills a ?crit : >> Herman De Wael: >> >> There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): >> - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation >> is correct; >> - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be >> able to prove this; >> >> Richard Hills: >> >> Law 72B1 requires that you do not intentionally commit an >> infraction. In this case, for example, you tell the truth about >> your *current* partnership understandings to the very best of >> your *current* recollection. (No doubt the 2017 Lawbook will >> clarify that the *only* time pard's explanations are AI to you >> is so as to give correct explanations of pard's calls.) >> > > I agree that this would be an advance. And, you see, that's exactly what > Herman said : when you seem to remember your system because of partner's > explanations, explain according to this. The problem being how certain > this recollection must be, and dwhether it is at all possible to speak > of certainty, human minds being what they are. And yet, this clarification is worse than another one that I should propose, even though I don't believe it is necessary. Since explaining partner's bids is not "bidding or play", the UI restrictions do not apply. So the proposed clarification is of no importance. There are other actions that you might make, based on UI, such as making a (mental or paper) note of something you need to talk about later. Perhaps it might be better (if only because Richard does not seem to know this) to clarify that it is alone bidding and play that you cannot do based on UI. Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 17 11:30:55 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:30:55 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be> References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>" " <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 17.02.2015 09:17, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> Le 16.02.2015 03:01, Richard Hills a ?crit : >>> Herman De Wael: >>> >>> There is one other requirement (or even two - or three): >>> - that you will be able to prove that your partner's explanation >>> is correct; >>> - that you know absolutely for certain that you will be will be >>> able to prove this; >>> >>> Richard Hills: >>> >>> Law 72B1 requires that you do not intentionally commit an >>> infraction. In this case, for example, you tell the truth about >>> your *current* partnership understandings to the very best of >>> your *current* recollection. (No doubt the 2017 Lawbook will >>> clarify that the *only* time pard's explanations are AI to you >>> is so as to give correct explanations of pard's calls.) >>> >> >> I agree that this would be an advance. And, you see, that's exactly >> what >> Herman said : when you seem to remember your system because of >> partner's >> explanations, explain according to this. The problem being how certain >> this recollection must be, and dwhether it is at all possible to speak >> of certainty, human minds being what they are. > > And yet, this clarification is worse than another one that I should > propose, even though I don't believe it is necessary. > Since explaining partner's bids is not "bidding or play", the UI > restrictions do not apply. So the proposed clarification is of no > importance. There are other actions that you might make, based on UI, > such as making a (mental or paper) note of something you need to talk > about later. I'm not sure about that. It has been judged that I may not take written notes of what has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring sheet which wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding sequence of each deal, in order the make statistics. This has been disallowed. Apparently, since paper and pencil might help you compute odds, they're disallowed for every purpose other than scoring and writing down explanations. > Perhaps it might be better (if only because Richard does not seem to > know this) to clarify that it is alone bidding and play that you cannot > do based on UI. > IMO there is at least one other thing you may not do based on UI : decide on a penalty. After a LOOT, the genuine declarer has to decide which penalty to take without any help from his partner. If partner's facial expression, as a reaction to the TD explaining the alternatives, makez it obvious which decision would work, I think it counts as 'help', and as such using it is unlawful. Best regards Alain From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 17 11:55:00 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:55:00 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: "\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>" " <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.b! e> <54E2F91D.7060300@sk ynet.be> Message-ID: <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no> agot > [...]. It has been judged that I may not take written notes of > what has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring sheet which > wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding sequence of each > deal, in order the make statistics. This has been disallowed. Apparently, since > paper and pencil might help you compute odds, they're disallowed for every > purpose other than scoring and writing down explanations. [Sven Pran] The legal reason why this is disallowed is that while you claim the notes are taken for statistics, the fact is that they (also) are an effective aid to your memory during the play on the auction related to that play. There is no legal foundation for disallowing you writing down the auction etc. once the play is completed. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Feb 17 11:57:04 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:57:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: "\" <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>" " <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54E31E80.4070004@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 17.02.2015 09:17, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> such as making a (mental or paper) note of something you need to talk >> about later. > > I'm not sure about that. It has been judged that I may not take written > notes of what has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring > sheet which wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding > sequence of each deal, in order the make statistics. This has been > disallowed. Apparently, since paper and pencil might help you compute > odds, they're disallowed for every purpose other than scoring and > writing down explanations. > Yes Alain, but this is disallowed (or allowed) for other reasons than for UI. I can imagine that a TD might allow you to make detailed notes of the bidding (of course putting them away after it) for statistical purposes or whatever. It is the use of such notes that is UI. You would be allowed to use UI (like: "partner, don't forget to note this") for doing so. > >> Perhaps it might be better (if only because Richard does not seem to >> know this) to clarify that it is alone bidding and play that you cannot >> do based on UI. >> > > IMO there is at least one other thing you may not do based on UI : > decide on a penalty. After a LOOT, the genuine declarer has to decide > which penalty to take without any help from his partner. If partner's > facial expression, as a reaction to the TD explaining the alternatives, > makez it obvious which decision would work, I think it counts as 'help', > and as such using it is unlawful. > But, since the action (even bidding and accepting) is a bid or play, that seems to be covered by the UI laws as they stand. Herman. > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Tue Feb 17 17:00:28 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:00:28 -0500 Subject: [BLML] How do you determine whether an insufficient bid is conventional? Message-ID: Under what circumstances is an insufficient bid conventional? Does it depend on the bidder's state of mind (that is, the same insufficient bid may be conventional if intended as conventional, and natural if intended as natural?) For example: N E S 1S 4H 3C If South thought the overcall was a pass, then 3C was conventional because this N-S pair plays Bergen raises (7-9 points with four spades). If South thought the overcall was 2H, then 3C was natural. If you ask South, or look at South's hand, and rule accordingly, you give North UI. And you need to know whether the bid was conventional even if South chooses not to correct to 5C. What happened at the table is that South bid 4S, and West went on to 5H. Now, if 3C showed clubs, North is subject to a lead penalty in clubs; if 3C showed spades, there is no lead penalty since 4S also showed spades. (And without looking at South's hand, you can't tell; South might have bid 3C and corrected the insufficient bid to 4S on something like Kxx xx Kxx AQTxx on which he intended to bid a natural 3C and then 4S.) From petereidt at t-online.de Tue Feb 17 17:14:41 2015 From: petereidt at t-online.de (Peter Eidt) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:14:41 +0100 Subject: [BLML] How do you determine whether an insufficient bid is conventional? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002101d04acc$d62f6b00$828e4100$@t-online.de> the questions below are (exactly) the reason why the TD should (almost) always take the IBer away from the table and ask him there what he thought he was doing ... There he may even have a look into the IBer hand - although he still should refrain from that. Peter von David Grabiner: > Under what circumstances is an insufficient bid conventional? Does it > depend on the bidder's state of mind (that is, the same insufficient bid may > be conventional if intended as conventional, and natural if intended as > natural?) > > For example: > > N E S > 1S 4H 3C > > If South thought the overcall was a pass, then 3C was conventional because > this N-S pair plays Bergen raises (7-9 points with four spades). If South > thought the overcall was 2H, then 3C was natural. If you ask South, or look at > South's hand, and rule accordingly, you give North UI. > > And you need to know whether the bid was conventional even if South > chooses not to correct to 5C. What happened at the table is that South bid > 4S, and West went on to 5H. Now, if 3C showed clubs, North is subject to a > lead penalty in clubs; if 3C showed spades, there is no lead penalty since 4S > also showed spades. (And without looking at South's hand, you can't tell; > South might have bid 3C and corrected the insufficient bid to 4S on > something like Kxx xx Kxx AQTxx on which he intended to bid a natural 3C > and then 4S.) From jfusselman at gmail.com Tue Feb 17 17:40:21 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:40:21 -0600 Subject: [BLML] How do you determine whether an insufficient bid is conventional? In-Reply-To: <002101d04acc$d62f6b00$828e4100$@t-online.de> References: <002101d04acc$d62f6b00$828e4100$@t-online.de> Message-ID: > > There he may even have a look into the IBer hand - although he still should > refrain from that. > He may look, but he should refrain? I would appreciate clarification. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 17 21:13:45 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:13:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>\\\" \\\" <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@i mapproxy.vub.ac.b! e> <54E2F91D.7060300@sk ynet.be>" " <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no> Message-ID: <7d6541fb1a19d5c48feb77b15029d3ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 17.02.2015 11:55, Sven Pran a ?crit?: > agot >> [...]. It has been judged that I may not take written notes of >> what has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring sheet >> which >> wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding sequence of >> each >> deal, in order the make statistics. This has been disallowed. >> Apparently, since >> paper and pencil might help you compute odds, they're disallowed for >> every >> purpose other than scoring and writing down explanations. > > [Sven Pran] > The legal reason why this is disallowed is that while you claim the > notes are taken for statistics, the fact is that they (also) are an > effective aid to your memory during the play on the auction related to > that play. Sorry, but this issn't the right explanation, because I never wrote it before the end of the play (unless dummy). From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 17 21:17:31 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:17:31 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54E31E80.4070004@skynet.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>\\\" \\\" <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be>" " <54E31E80.4070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: Le 17.02.2015 11:57, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> Le 17.02.2015 09:17, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> such as making a (mental or paper) note of something you need to talk >>> about later. >> >> I'm not sure about that. It has been judged that I may not take >> written >> notes of what has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a >> scoring >> sheet which wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding >> sequence of each deal, in order the make statistics. This has been >> disallowed. Apparently, since paper and pencil might help you compute >> odds, they're disallowed for every purpose other than scoring and >> writing down explanations. >> > > Yes Alain, but this is disallowed (or allowed) for other reasons than > for UI. I can imagine that a TD might allow you to make detailed notes > of the bidding (of course putting them away after it) for statistical > purposes or whatever. It is the use of such notes that is UI. You would > be allowed to use UI (like: "partner, don't forget to note this") for > doing so. > >> >>> Perhaps it might be better (if only because Richard does not seem to >>> know this) to clarify that it is alone bidding and play that you >>> cannot >>> do based on UI. >>> >> >> IMO there is at least one other thing you may not do based on UI : >> decide on a penalty. After a LOOT, the genuine declarer has to decide >> which penalty to take without any help from his partner. If partner's >> facial expression, as a reaction to the TD explaining the >> alternatives, >> makez it obvious which decision would work, I think it counts as >> 'help', >> and as such using it is unlawful. >> > > But, since the action (even bidding and accepting) is a bid or play, > that seems to be covered by the UI laws as they stand. > > You mean that exerdcizing an option would be covered by 'bid or play' ? Nobody would understand that. Of course the present laws cover it, but the one you suggest hardly does, and I think it should be covered. From agot at ulb.ac.be Tue Feb 17 21:19:38 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:19:38 +0100 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?How_do_you_determine_whether_an_insufficient_bid?= =?utf-8?q?_is=09conventional=3F?= In-Reply-To: <002101d04acc$d62f6b00$828e4100$@t-online.de> References: <002101d04acc$d62f6b00$828e4100$@t-online.de> Message-ID: <323e51255c693f5abc307165ee70e41f@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 17.02.2015 17:14, Peter Eidt a ?crit?: > the questions below are (exactly) the reason why the TD should (almost) > always > take the IBer away from the table and ask him there what he thought he > was > doing ... > ?Right, but then his ruling would give that very same UI. From svenpran at online.no Tue Feb 17 23:00:04 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 23:00:04 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <7d6541fb1a19d5c48feb77b15029d3ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <000d01d043ac$4bd94330$e38bc990$@online.no> <001601d043c9$14438080$3cca8180$@online.no> <54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>\\\" \\\" <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@! i mapproxy.vub.ac.b! e> <54E2F91D.7060300@sk ynet.be>" " <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no> <7d6541fb1a19d5c48feb77b15029d3ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <000701d04afd$16c07f80$44417e80$@online.no> agot > Le 17.02.2015 11:55, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > agot > >> [...]. It has been judged that I may not take written notes of what > >> has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring sheet > >> which wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding > >> sequence of each deal, in order the make statistics. This has been > >> disallowed. > >> Apparently, since > >> paper and pencil might help you compute odds, they're disallowed for > >> every purpose other than scoring and writing down explanations. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > The legal reason why this is disallowed is that while you claim the > > notes are taken for statistics, the fact is that they (also) are an > > effective aid to your memory during the play on the auction related to > > that play. > > Sorry, but this issn't the right explanation, because I never wrote it before the > end of the play (unless dummy). [Sven Pran] I stand by my answer. IMHO there is no legal reason to forbid a player making notes on whatever features or events in a play he has (just) finished. If a TD should forbid me to make such notes I would request him to show how my activity can be ruled illegal. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 18 09:43:09 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:43:09 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"<54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>\\\" \\\" <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be>" " <54E31E80.4070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <54E4509D.9030306@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 17.02.2015 11:57, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>> >> >> But, since the action (even bidding and accepting) is a bid or play, >> that seems to be covered by the UI laws as they stand. >> >> > > You mean that exerdcizing an option would be covered by 'bid or play' ? > Nobody would understand that. > Well, you cannot exercise the option of accepting without actually making a bid (or play). But you are right, you could pass in both instances, and only the accept might make a difference between the two auctions. Herman. > Of course the present laws cover it, but the one you suggest hardly > does, and I think it should be covered. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 18 09:54:54 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:54:54 +0100 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling Message-ID: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> Let me tell you a story about my club tournament yesterday. The bidding starts 1Cl-pass-1Sp. This is alerted. My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer Walsh". My partner bids 2Sp. "NOT Transfer Walsh" says the opponent. "Oh, I understood you did play T-Walsh" (both systems are alertable in Belgium). "In that case, I will pass", says my partner. The opponents don't object. RHO bids 3NT and I'm on lead. I wish to not-use the UI I have, so I prepare a diamond lead. But I decide to complete the ruling and offer declarer the chance to refuse or demand a spade lead. He asks for the spade lead, takes the first trick with the Spade Ace and proceeds to make 9 tricks. On a diamond lead we would have taken the first 5 tricks. Morale: even if the opponents don't want to punish the change of call, it's best to follow the rules (and I did check afterwards, L26 seems applicable even after an accepted change of call). We managed to win the tournament even after than. And before you comment on us accepting such a blatant change of call, my partner is 82 and suffering from terminal cancer (hopefully progressing very slowly). Herman. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 18 10:38:59 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:38:59 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <54E4509D.9030306@skynet.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"<54D8733E.4070907@skynet.be> <002301d04452$830b5770$89220650$@online.no> <000401d04478$4f2da4a0$ed88ede0$@online.no> <001001d044b6$1a6f9000$4f4eb000$@online.no> <54D9D3EC.5060606@skynet.be> <350b08b6df591e4185da51e7158a8d2c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <12269913a5e82ef825d91817925401d9@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54DDC0E7.4040200@skynet.be>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <8dc451390e6e0756c8dee0e1b0307fe2@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be>\\\" \\\" <54E31E80.4070004@skynet.be> " " <54E4509D.9030306@skynet.be> Message-ID: <92aaa0e6f9ab39cb3e362d02514c554c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.02.2015 09:43, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> Le 17.02.2015 11:57, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >>>> >>> >>> But, since the action (even bidding and accepting) is a bid or play, >>> that seems to be covered by the UI laws as they stand. >>> >>> >> >> You mean that exerdcizing an option would be covered by 'bid or play' >> ? >> Nobody would understand that. >> > > Well, you cannot exercise the option of accepting without actually > making a bid (or play). > But you are right, you could pass in both instances, and only the > accept > might make a difference between the two auctions. Did you notice that i was speakng about a LOOT ? From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Feb 18 10:44:40 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:44:40 +0100 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling In-Reply-To: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> References: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> Message-ID: <421f544265be15ded08dc29a68b52831@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.02.2015 09:54, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Let me tell you a story about my club tournament yesterday. > > The bidding starts 1Cl-pass-1Sp. This is alerted. > > My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer Walsh". > > My partner bids 2Sp. "NOT Transfer Walsh" says the opponent. > > "Oh, I understood you did play T-Walsh" (both systems are alertable in > Belgium). > > "In that case, I will pass", says my partner. The opponents don't > object. > > RHO bids 3NT and I'm on lead. > I wish to not-use the UI I have, so I prepare a diamond lead. But I > decide to complete the ruling and offer declarer the chance to refuse > or > demand a spade lead. He asks for the spade lead, takes the first trick > with the Spade Ace and proceeds to make 9 tricks. > On a diamond lead we would have taken the first 5 tricks. > > Morale: even if the opponents don't want to punish the change of call, > it's best to follow the rules (and I did check afterwards, L26 seems > applicable even after an accepted change of call). > > We managed to win the tournament even after than. > > And before you comment on us accepting such a blatant change of call, > my > partner is 82 and suffering from terminal cancer (hopefully progressing > very slowly). > I understand everything that was done, except one thing : does one still alert Walsh, which has become standard in Belgium AFAIK ? And indeed I had to adjudge a similar case, as "T-Walsh" dsounds very similar to " 't is Walsh" (to the other sphere : this is normal pronunciation in Flemish). From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Feb 18 11:17:14 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 11:17:14 +0100 Subject: [BLML] self-ruling In-Reply-To: <421f544265be15ded08dc29a68b52831@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <54E4535E.2060605@skynet.be> <421f544265be15ded08dc29a68b52831@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <54E466AA.6080802@skynet.be> agot schreef: > Le 18.02.2015 09:54, Herman De Wael a ?crit : >> Let me tell you a story about my club tournament yesterday. >> >> The bidding starts 1Cl-pass-1Sp. This is alerted. >> >> My partner asks, and the answer is "we play Walsh, not transfer Walsh". >> >> My partner bids 2Sp. "NOT Transfer Walsh" says the opponent. >> >> "Oh, I understood you did play T-Walsh" (both systems are alertable in >> Belgium). >> >> "In that case, I will pass", says my partner. The opponents don't >> object. >> >> RHO bids 3NT and I'm on lead. >> I wish to not-use the UI I have, so I prepare a diamond lead. But I >> decide to complete the ruling and offer declarer the chance to refuse >> or >> demand a spade lead. He asks for the spade lead, takes the first trick >> with the Spade Ace and proceeds to make 9 tricks. >> On a diamond lead we would have taken the first 5 tricks. >> >> Morale: even if the opponents don't want to punish the change of call, >> it's best to follow the rules (and I did check afterwards, L26 seems >> applicable even after an accepted change of call). >> >> We managed to win the tournament even after than. >> >> And before you comment on us accepting such a blatant change of call, >> my >> partner is 82 and suffering from terminal cancer (hopefully progressing >> very slowly). >> > > I understand everything that was done, except one thing : does one still > alert Walsh, which has become standard in Belgium AFAIK ? It has become standard in the south, but not in the north. And the alert procedure has not yet been adapted. Which it will be, and from september, Walsh will no longer be alertable (but T-Walsh obviously will be). Herman. > > And indeed I had to adjudge a similar case, as "T-Walsh" dsounds very > similar to " 't is Walsh" (to the other sphere : this is normal > pronunciation in Flemish). > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Feb 18 13:16:29 2015 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 12:16:29 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare References: Message-ID: 1N - x - P - 2S...etc. P not alerted but is forcing a xx from pard. After play, 2S side are seeking an adjustment. Non alerter tells me that if RHO had passed he WOULD have xx'd... Do you believe him ??? L --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Wed Feb 18 14:27:23 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:27:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> Am 18.02.2015 um 13:16 schrieb Larry: > 1N - x - P - 2S...etc. > > > P not alerted but is forcing a xx from pard. > > After play, 2S side are seeking an adjustment. > > Non alerter tells me that if RHO had passed he WOULD have xx'd... > > Do you believe him ??? I can`t see where this is important whether we belive that or not. If pass is an alert (it isn`t where I live (only with screens), but this is not important either...) the TD has to find out whether there was any damage connected to the infraction. If not, case closed. If there is such damage we have to look into the alleged system. For one I would like to hear from the passer. Did he think it was forcing? If so, where would it have led? Belief is not a factor for me, system is. I may take his statement into account, but I would have to talk to him myself.... From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Feb 18 14:40:00 2015 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:40:00 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> Message-ID: Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was forcing to xx. Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as per failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire outcome. L. > Am 18.02.2015 um 13:16 schrieb Larry: >> 1N - x - P - 2S...etc. >> >> >> P not alerted but is forcing a xx from pard. >> >> After play, 2S side are seeking an adjustment. >> >> Non alerter tells me that if RHO had passed he WOULD have xx'd... >> >> Do you believe him ??? > > I can`t see where this is important whether we belive that or not. If > pass is an alert (it isn`t where I live (only with screens), but this is > not important either...) the TD has to find out whether there was any > damage connected to the infraction. If not, case closed. If there is > such damage we have to look into the alleged system. For one I would > like to hear from the passer. Did he think it was forcing? If so, where > would it have led? Belief is not a factor for me, system is. I may take > his statement into account, but I would have to talk to him myself.... > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 16:36:54 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:36:54 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:40:00 -0000, Larry wrote: >Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. > >The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was >forcing to xx. >Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as per >failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. > >However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire outcome. > So did you ask him *why* he didn't alert if he knew the pass forced a redouble? Brian. From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Wed Feb 18 17:06:05 2015 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:06:05 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> Message-ID: <1F38CD1A6690474E84B5E16D946B31DD@digitpc> >>Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. >> >>The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was >>forcing to xx. >>Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as per >>failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. >> >>However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire >>outcome. >> > > So did you ask him *why* he didn't alert if he knew the pass forced a > redouble? > > Brian. Yeah, I managed that. He 'forgot to'. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com From axman22 at hotmail.com Wed Feb 18 17:49:51 2015 From: axman22 at hotmail.com (r pewick) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 10:49:51 -0600 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: <000701d04afd$16c07f80$44417e80$@online.no> References: e> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be>" " <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no><7d6541fb1a19d5c48feb77b15029d3ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <000701d04afd$16c07f80$44417e80$@online.no> Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Sven Pran Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:00 PM To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' Subject: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations agot > Le 17.02.2015 11:55, Sven Pran a ?crit : > > agot > >> [...]. It has been judged that I may not take written notes of what > >> has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring sheet > >> which wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding > >> sequence of each deal, in order the make statistics. This has been > >> disallowed. > >> Apparently, since > >> paper and pencil might help you compute odds, they're disallowed for > >> every purpose other than scoring and writing down explanations. > > > > [Sven Pran] > > The legal reason why this is disallowed is that while you claim the > > notes are taken for statistics, the fact is that they (also) are an > > effective aid to your memory during the play on the auction related to > > that play. > > Sorry, but this issn't the right explanation, because I never wrote it > before the > end of the play (unless dummy). [Sven Pran] I stand by my answer. IMHO there is no legal reason to forbid a player making notes on whatever features or events in a play he has (just) finished. If a TD should forbid me to make such notes I would request him to show how my activity can be ruled illegal. I'm not aware of the context, but I should think that an objection to making notes can arise from the manner in which they are made- for instance, while a hand is in progress [the possibility of pencil signals come to mind]; in other words- remove the possibility of UI, improper deception, and, disconcerting the opponents: and it is likely that valid objections are absent. regards roger pewick From bmeadows666 at gmail.com Wed Feb 18 19:23:05 2015 From: bmeadows666 at gmail.com (brian) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 13:23:05 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: <1F38CD1A6690474E84B5E16D946B31DD@digitpc> References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> <1F38CD1A6690474E84B5E16D946B31DD@digitpc> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Feb 2015 16:06:05 -0000, you wrote: >>>Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. >>> >>>The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was >>>forcing to xx. >>>Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as per >>>failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. >>> >>>However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire >>>outcome. >>> >> >> So did you ask him *why* he didn't alert if he knew the pass forced a >> redouble? >> >> Brian. > > >Yeah, I managed that. He 'forgot to'. > > OK, so IMO it's up to the TD on the spot to decide whether it's a failure to alert or the 1NT opener actually forgot his system, I don't see how it's possible to decide that after the event on a mailing list. A weighted score adjustment would probably be the most equitable result, percentages of 1NT* and whatever would happen after the forced runout, based on your assessment of the 1NT bidder's claim. Brian. >--- >This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >http://www.avast.com > >_______________________________________________ >Blml mailing list >Blml at rtflb.org >http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From svenpran at online.no Wed Feb 18 21:36:18 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 21:36:18 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: e> <54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be>" " <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no><7d6541fb1a19d5c48feb77b15029d3ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <000701d04afd$16c07f80$44417e80$@online.no> Message-ID: <000801d04bba$8d62b140$a82813c0$@online.no> > pewick > [Sven Pran] > I stand by my answer. IMHO there is no legal reason to forbid a player making > notes on whatever features or events in a play he has (just) finished. > > If a TD should forbid me to make such notes I would request him to show how > my activity can be ruled illegal. > > > I'm not aware of the context, but I should think that an objection to making > notes can arise from the manner in which they are made- for instance, while > a hand is in progress [the possibility of pencil signals come to mind]; in > other words- remove the possibility of UI, improper deception, and, > disconcerting the opponents: and it is likely that valid objections are > absent. [Sven Pran] My point was that while taking points _during_ the auction or play could constitute an illegal aid to memory, but I cannot see any legal reason to forbid taking such notes after play has been completed on the board. It seems to me that you overlooked this time element with your comment? From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 19 08:54:52 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:54:52 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> Message-ID: <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> Larry schreef: > Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. > > The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was > forcing to xx. > Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as per > failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. > > However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire outcome. > Well, I would look him in the eyes and ask "if you knew it was forcing to redouble, why did you not alert?" And if the reply is something like "I did not know that was alertable" then I say: "Well, it was and you didn't, so I have to rule that you may have forgotten." Other responses might persuade me otherwise. The speed of the 2S bid is also important, but he should have alerted after a speedy 2S anyway. So no, I tend not to believe him and rule 1NX (if I can believe that the 2S bidder would pass). Also important is how long the 2S bidder waited, and how well-versed he is with the X-XX strategy. Herman. > L. > >> Am 18.02.2015 um 13:16 schrieb Larry: >>> 1N - x - P - 2S...etc. >>> >>> >>> P not alerted but is forcing a xx from pard. >>> >>> After play, 2S side are seeking an adjustment. >>> >>> Non alerter tells me that if RHO had passed he WOULD have xx'd... >>> >>> Do you believe him ??? >> >> I can`t see where this is important whether we belive that or not. If >> pass is an alert (it isn`t where I live (only with screens), but this is >> not important either...) the TD has to find out whether there was any >> damage connected to the infraction. If not, case closed. If there is >> such damage we have to look into the alleged system. For one I would >> like to hear from the passer. Did he think it was forcing? If so, where >> would it have led? Belief is not a factor for me, system is. I may take >> his statement into account, but I would have to talk to him myself.... >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk Thu Feb 19 14:42:22 2015 From: larry at charmschool.orangehome.co.uk (Larry) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 13:42:22 -0000 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> Message-ID: <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> Ah...sanity. Precisely what I did Herman. There was nothing untoward re the 2S call. As it happened, both 500 (2Sx) and 280 (1Nx) were both outright tops so the problem was academic. Good grief am I sneaking into the HdW school ?? Arrghhhhhhhhhh! Thanks H L > Larry schreef: >> Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. >> >> The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was >> forcing to xx. >> Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as >> per >> failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. >> >> However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire >> outcome. >> > > Well, I would look him in the eyes and ask "if you knew it was forcing > to redouble, why did you not alert?" > And if the reply is something like "I did not know that was alertable" > then I say: "Well, it was and you didn't, so I have to rule that you may > have forgotten." > Other responses might persuade me otherwise. The speed of the 2S bid is > also important, but he should have alerted after a speedy 2S anyway. > > So no, I tend not to believe him and rule 1NX (if I can believe that the > 2S bidder would pass). Also important is how long the 2S bidder waited, > and how well-versed he is with the X-XX strategy. > > Herman. > >> L. >> >>> Am 18.02.2015 um 13:16 schrieb Larry: >>>> 1N - x - P - 2S...etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> P not alerted but is forcing a xx from pard. >>>> >>>> After play, 2S side are seeking an adjustment. >>>> >>>> Non alerter tells me that if RHO had passed he WOULD have xx'd... >>>> >>>> Do you believe him ??? >>> >>> I can`t see where this is important whether we belive that or not. If >>> pass is an alert (it isn`t where I live (only with screens), but this is >>> not important either...) the TD has to find out whether there was any >>> damage connected to the infraction. If not, case closed. If there is >>> such damage we have to look into the alleged system. For one I would >>> like to hear from the passer. Did he think it was forcing? If so, where >>> would it have led? Belief is not a factor for me, system is. I may take >>> his statement into account, but I would have to talk to him myself.... >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com From hermandw at skynet.be Thu Feb 19 15:15:29 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:15:29 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> References: <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> Message-ID: <54E5F001.4070105@skynet.be> Larry schreef: > Ah...sanity. > > Precisely what I did Herman. There was nothing untoward re the 2S call. > > As it happened, both 500 (2Sx) and 280 (1Nx) were both outright tops so the > problem was academic. > > Good grief am I sneaking into the HdW school ?? > Not at all. Don't worry. These are not controversial issues, unlike some others. > > Arrghhhhhhhhhh! > > Thanks H > > L > > >> Larry schreef: >>> Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. >>> >>> The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass was >>> forcing to xx. >>> Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system (as >>> per >>> failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. >>> >>> However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire >>> outcome. >>> >> >> Well, I would look him in the eyes and ask "if you knew it was forcing >> to redouble, why did you not alert?" >> And if the reply is something like "I did not know that was alertable" >> then I say: "Well, it was and you didn't, so I have to rule that you may >> have forgotten." >> Other responses might persuade me otherwise. The speed of the 2S bid is >> also important, but he should have alerted after a speedy 2S anyway. >> >> So no, I tend not to believe him and rule 1NX (if I can believe that the >> 2S bidder would pass). Also important is how long the 2S bidder waited, >> and how well-versed he is with the X-XX strategy. >> >> Herman. >> >>> L. >>> >>>> Am 18.02.2015 um 13:16 schrieb Larry: >>>>> 1N - x - P - 2S...etc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P not alerted but is forcing a xx from pard. >>>>> >>>>> After play, 2S side are seeking an adjustment. >>>>> >>>>> Non alerter tells me that if RHO had passed he WOULD have xx'd... >>>>> >>>>> Do you believe him ??? >>>> >>>> I can`t see where this is important whether we belive that or not. If >>>> pass is an alert (it isn`t where I live (only with screens), but this is >>>> not important either...) the TD has to find out whether there was any >>>> damage connected to the infraction. If not, case closed. If there is >>>> such damage we have to look into the alleged system. For one I would >>>> like to hear from the passer. Did he think it was forcing? If so, where >>>> would it have led? Belief is not a factor for me, system is. I may take >>>> his statement into account, but I would have to talk to him myself.... >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Blml mailing list >>>> Blml at rtflb.org >>>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> http://www.avast.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Blml mailing list >>> Blml at rtflb.org >>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Feb 19 21:28:20 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 21:28:20 +0100 Subject: [BLML] predictable system violations In-Reply-To: References: e> "<54E2F91D.7060300@skynet.be>\" \"" <000b01d04aa0$2e487e30$8ad97a90$@online.no><7d6541fb1a19d5c48feb77b15029d3ce@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <000701d04afd$16c07f80$44417e80$@online.no> Message-ID: <7926cf247fa924e79d201cf6fe8380c1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 18.02.2015 17:49, r pewick a ?crit?: > -----Original Message----- > From: Sven Pran > Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 4:00 PM > To: 'Bridge Laws Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [BLML] predictable system violations > > agot >> Le 17.02.2015 11:55, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> > agot >> >> [...]. It has been judged that I may not take written notes of what >> >> has happened at the table. To be precise, I held a scoring sheet >> >> which wasn't the official one and mentioned the starting bidding >> >> sequence of each deal, in order the make statistics. This has been >> >> disallowed. >> >> Apparently, since >> >> paper and pencil might help you compute odds, they're disallowed for >> >> every purpose other than scoring and writing down explanations. >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > The legal reason why this is disallowed is that while you claim the >> > notes are taken for statistics, the fact is that they (also) are an >> > effective aid to your memory during the play on the auction related to >> > that play. >> >> Sorry, but this issn't the right explanation, because I never wrote it >> before the >> end of the play (unless dummy). > > [Sven Pran] > I stand by my answer. IMHO there is no legal reason to forbid a player > making notes on whatever features or events in a play he has (just) > finished. > > If a TD should forbid me to make such notes I would request him to show > how > my activity can be ruled illegal. > > > I'm not aware of the context, but I should think that an objection to > making > notes can arise from the manner in which they are made- for instance, > while > a hand is in progress [the possibility of pencil signals come to mind]; > in > other words- remove the possibility of UI, improper deception, and, > disconcerting the opponents: and it is likely that valid objections are > absent. > Anyway, noting several things on your score sheet (if only circling deal numbersthat need discussions) is common practice. Doing more (e.g. several different symbols) might raise the issue of communication, but usually there is little to communicate between deals. From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Feb 20 12:43:43 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:43:43 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> References: " " <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> Message-ID: <763996d9e0883df80cd66c345b776bd4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 19.02.2015 14:42, Larry a ?crit?: >> Larry schreef: >>> Sorry, perhaps I've been a little too simple. >>> >>> The 2S bidder says he would have passed had he known that RHO's pass >>> was >>> forcing to xx. >>> Person who failed to alert will now pass if he has fogotten system >>> (as >>> per >>> failure to alert) and therefore play in 1Nx. >>> >>> However, he is telling me that he WOULD xx, which alters the entire >>> outcome. >>> >> >> Well, I would look him in the eyes and ask "if you knew it was forcing >> to redouble, why did you not alert?" >> And if the reply is something like "I did not know that was alertable" >> then I say: "Well, it was and you didn't, so I have to rule that you >> may >> have forgotten." I'm uneasy with the idea of ruling that the player would have forgotten his system. We are empowered to rule, in case of doubt, that the OS would have misbid or misplayed. IMO we aren't empowered to take into account other possible errors. For example, if the need to rule during the auction makes it appear that a player misheard the bidding, we can't rule that, absent our intervention, he would have led out of turn as a consequence. He might well have, but TFLB doesn't empower us too pretend it. Best regards Alain From hermandw at skynet.be Fri Feb 20 14:04:35 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:04:35 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: <763996d9e0883df80cd66c345b776bd4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: " " <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de> <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> <763996d9e0883df80cd66c345b776bd4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <54E730E3.30602@skynet.be> agot schreef: > > I'm uneasy with the idea of ruling that the player would have forgotten > his system. > Well, if that is what he might actually have done? Remember the case: 1NT x p no alert We must rule that the opponents had the right to an alert. And then we must determine what would have happened subsequently, perhaps even weighting some alternatives. Now is it not among the possibilities that the guy who forgot to alert actually forgot what his system was, and passed? > We are empowered to rule, in case of doubt, that the OS would have > misbid or misplayed. > IMO we aren't empowered to take into account other possible errors. > That's true. > > For example, if the need to rule during the auction makes it appear that > a player misheard the bidding, we can't rule that, absent our > intervention, he would have led out of turn as a consequence. > He might well have, but TFLB doesn't empower us too pretend it. > Indeed not, because the LOOT is an infraction of law. But forgetting your system is not, and the examples do not equate as a consequence. > > Best regards > See you tomorrow? (National Championship IMP pairs, which Alain has previously already won). Herman. > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From agot at ulb.ac.be Sat Feb 21 21:51:24 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:51:24 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Truth or Dare In-Reply-To: <54E730E3.30602@skynet.be> References: "\" \" <54E4933B.4070505@t-online.de>" <54E596CC.30908@skynet.be> <30E5AD46AAEB4D68A50E46B80BBC0BCA@digitpc> <763996d9e0883df80cd66c345b776bd4@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <54E730E3.30602@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2b8ee4e38734bebcb0819e6bb2d175d7@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.02.2015 14:04, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > agot schreef: >> >> I'm uneasy with the idea of ruling that the player would have >> forgotten >> his system. >> > > Well, if that is what he might actually have done? > Remember the case: > 1NT x p no alert > We must rule that the opponents had the right to an alert. And then we > must determine what would have happened subsequently, perhaps even > weighting some alternatives. Now is it not among the possibilities that > the guy who forgot to alert actually forgot what his system was, and > passed? > >> We are empowered to rule, in case of doubt, that the OS would have >> misbid or misplayed. >> IMO we aren't empowered to take into account other possible errors. >> > > That's true. > >> >> For example, if the need to rule during the auction makes it appear >> that >> a player misheard the bidding, we can't rule that, absent our >> intervention, he would have led out of turn as a consequence. >> He might well have, but TFLB doesn't empower us too pretend it. >> > > Indeed not, because the LOOT is an infraction of law. But forgetting > your system is not, and the examples do not equate as a consequence. But neither woud most of us count it as the kind of "normal errors" which they'll take into account. Notice that I'm not against the idea that the possibility of a pass be taken into account. I just feel unable to do it for now. There could / shoild be a proviso about 'taking into account all reasonably possible consequences of the current situation'. The important part being 'consequences', because other events might happen and be unfavorable to the OS, e.g. they might turn to the TD and show their cards to hte opponents, which isn't an infrzction. > >> >> Best regards >> > > See you tomorrow? (National Championship IMP pairs, which Alain has > previously already won). Sorry, still out of the game for a few more months. .