From rfrick at rfrick.info Wed Jul 1 03:56:28 2015 From: rfrick at rfrick.info (Robert Frick) Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:56:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Kibitzer notices mistaken explanation Message-ID: No questions here, it was just a ruling I never expected to make. The WBFLC minuted that the requirement to give the opponents the correct explanation of the partnership agreement took precedence over the other laws. We know why they did that. But it means, as I interpret it, that a kibitzer should correct a mistaken explanation. (Yes, you can find laws against that, but they don't take precedence.) So I was just doing my normal whining and I never expected to meet this ruling. Then last week a kibitzer (a pro watching two clients) came up to me and asked if he should correct a mistaken explanation by declarer. It actually worked out well! I think the opponents were happy to just play bridge. No one got punished and I think everyone was happy. Bob From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Wed Jul 1 08:27:55 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 08:27:55 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:55:23 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: > I would please ask Richard to note some things: > What I said was that "if declarer can convince me that ..." > Richard seems to believe that this declarer is stupid, and he deduces > this from ... nothing. > Surely a stupid declarer will not be able to convince me. > But Richard should not, with the certainty he displays, make seem that > my ruling must be wrong. > Please also note that Petrus said this was the weakest player at the > table. The others were probably Austrian champions, and this was an > Austrian >Championship. It does not follow thatdeclarer was a ninconpoop > who is unable to remember from trick three to four. > I stand by my presumed ruling, which was only conditional to start with. > Herman. > FTR: I don't personally know declarer, only his masterpoint total, his choice of partner for this tournament, and the fact that he had already produced two insufficient bids in the four preceding rounds. He seemed to be in his 40s and of sound mind. North is about 80, and he played the CJ after declarer had named the queen; dummy had never replaced her C5 by CQ. Herman, could you elaborate one the reasons why 1 is wrong? I have not found any law or guidance when the designation of a card is deemed to be finished. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150701/dfce87cb/attachment.html From hermandw2610 at gmail.com Wed Jul 1 09:31:54 2015 From: hermandw2610 at gmail.com (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 09:31:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Petrus wrote: Herman, could you elaborate one the reasons why 1 is wrong? I have not found any law or guidance when the designation of a card is deemed to be finished. Logic dictates that this must be so. If I can, without impunity, say "spade" and be allowed to say "queen" three minutes later, the law simply cannot work. If there is time for anyone, including dummy, to act, then the designation must be deemed finished and final. And it is very difficult to write a law determining when the designation has finished. It is quite possible to say spade .... in such a manner that everyone realizezs the designation is not finished yet. And it is impossible to put an intonation into a text. 2015-07-01 8:27 GMT+02:00 Petrus Schuster OSB : > On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:55:23 +0200, Herman De Wael < > hermandw2610 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I would please ask Richard to note some things: > What I said was that "if declarer can convince me that ..." > Richard seems to believe that this declarer is stupid, and he deduces this > from ... nothing. > Surely a stupid declarer will not be able to convince me. > But Richard should not, with the certainty he displays, make seem that my > ruling must be wrong. > Please also note that Petrus said this was the weakest player at the > table. The others were probably Austrian champions, and this was an > Austrian Championship. It does not follow thatdeclarer was a ninconpoop who > is unable to remember from trick three to four. > I stand by my presumed ruling, which was only conditional to start with. > Herman. > > > FTR: > > I don't personally know declarer, only his masterpoint total, his choice > of partner for this tournament, and the fact that he had already produced > two insufficient bids in the four preceding rounds. He seemed to be in his > 40s and of sound mind. > > North is about 80, and he played the CJ after declarer had named the > queen; dummy had never replaced her C5 by CQ. > > Herman, could you elaborate one the reasons why 1 is wrong? I have not > found any law or guidance when the designation of a card is deemed to be > finished. > > Regards, > Petrus > -- > Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > -- This mail was sent from Tromso, Norway at the European Bridge Championships Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150701/c4d00a1d/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 1 10:00:20 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 10:00:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000f01d0b3d3$fb03dc70$f10b9550$@online.no> I think the important clause here is (from Law 46B): ?(except when declarer?s different intention is incontrovertible) ? This reduces the ?problem? to a matter of judgement, but I find it obvious that the ?different intention? must be ?incontrovertible? ? not only to declarer himself. Fra: blml-bounces at rtflb.org [mailto:blml-bounces at rtflb.org] P? vegne av Herman De Wael Sendt: 1. juli 2015 09:32 Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List Emne: Re: [BLML] card played from dummy Petrus wrote: Herman, could you elaborate one the reasons why 1 is wrong? I have not found any law or guidance when the designation of a card is deemed to be finished. Logic dictates that this must be so. If I can, without impunity, say "spade" and be allowed to say "queen" three minutes later, the law simply cannot work. If there is time for anyone, including dummy, to act, then the designation must be deemed finished and final. And it is very difficult to write a law determining when the designation has finished. It is quite possible to say spade .... in such a manner that everyone realizezs the designation is not finished yet. And it is impossible to put an intonation into a text. 2015-07-01 8:27 GMT+02:00 Petrus Schuster OSB : On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 11:55:23 +0200, Herman De Wael wrote: I would please ask Richard to note some things: What I said was that "if declarer can convince me that ..." Richard seems to believe that this declarer is stupid, and he deduces this from ... nothing. Surely a stupid declarer will not be able to convince me. But Richard should not, with the certainty he displays, make seem that my ruling must be wrong. Please also note that Petrus said this was the weakest player at the table. The others were probably Austrian champions, and this was an Austrian Championship. It does not follow thatdeclarer was a ninconpoop who is unable to remember from trick three to four. I stand by my presumed ruling, which was only conditional to start with. Herman. FTR: I don't personally know declarer, only his masterpoint total, his choice of partner for this tournament, and the fact that he had already produced two insufficient bids in the four preceding rounds. He seemed to be in his 40s and of sound mind. North is about 80, and he played the CJ after declarer had named the queen; dummy had never replaced her C5 by CQ. Herman, could you elaborate one the reasons why 1 is wrong? I have not found any law or guidance when the designation of a card is deemed to be finished. Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml -- This mail was sent from Tromso, Norway at the European Bridge Championships Please do not save this address - always use: hermandw at skynet.be. Herman De Wael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150701/0771693b/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jul 1 17:13:46 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 11:13:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] card played from dummy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <559403AA.7000404@nhcc.net> On 2015-06-29 3:25 AM, Herman De Wael wrote: > As to the club jack, the laws are simple. If the CJ is played before > the C5 is (legally, as it turns out) changed into the CQ, then it can > be changed. If it is played after the mention of "Queen" then it has > to remain played. While I don't disagree with the principle, "after mention" seem too unsympathetic to the innocent defender. If the change to C-Q was clear, then OK, C-J was played. If there was confusion and C-J was played before the defender realized the change of play had happened, then let it be withdrawn. On 2015-07-01 2:27 AM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > North is about 80, and he played the CJ after declarer had named the > queen; dummy had never replaced her C5 by CQ. Hard to tell from this what to do, but if dummy had not reacted to the change of play, making the defender responsible for reacting seems severe. Of course the first question is whether declarer can convince you -- "incontrovertably" -- of his "different intention." From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 2 11:23:19 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2015 11:23:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Kibitzer notices mistaken explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 01.07.2015 03:56, Robert Frick a ?crit?: > No questions here, it was just a ruling I never expected to make. The > WBFLC minuted that the requirement to give the opponents the correct > explanation of the partnership agreement took precedence over the > other laws. We know why they did that. > > But it means, as I interpret it, that a kibitzer should correct a > mistaken explanation. (Yes, you can find laws against that, but they > don't take precedence.) > No problem IMO. The players are requested to give correct explanations, and this takes precedence, which means that anything they could find in the laws tu justify not having done it is void. But the kibitzers' action is not coverted by a requirement issued to the players, so the laws about kibitzers' neutrality aren't voided. It would be otherwise ifs the text of the minutes was "the players are entitled to a full explanation, and this takes precedence". Best regards Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Jul 3 16:59:09 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2015 00:59:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Kibitzer notices mistaken explanation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] But the kibitzers' action is not coverted by a requirement issued to the players, so the laws about kibitzers' neutrality aren't voided. It would be otherwise ifs the text of the minutes was "the players are entitled to a full explanation, and this takes precedence". Richard Hills: I agree with Alain. Yes, a competent Director carefully reads the exact words of the relevant Law or minute. And the 2008 minute (page 5) refers to Law 20F, an obligation for a player, not a spectator. Likewise Law 44C states that the obligation to follow suit takes precedence over all other requirements of the Laws, but nevertheless a spectator is not empowered to prevent a revoke. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Thursday, July 2, 2015, agot wrote: > Le 01.07.2015 03:56, Robert Frick a ?crit : > > No questions here, it was just a ruling I never expected to make. The > > WBFLC minuted that the requirement to give the opponents the correct > > explanation of the partnership agreement took precedence over the > > other laws. We know why they did that. > > > > But it means, as I interpret it, that a kibitzer should correct a > > mistaken explanation. (Yes, you can find laws against that, but they > > don't take precedence.) > > > > No problem IMO. The players are requested to give correct explanations, > and this takes precedence, which means that anything they could find in > the laws tu justify not having done it is void. > > But the kibitzers' action is not coverted by a requirement issued to the > players, so the laws about kibitzers' neutrality aren't voided. > > It would be otherwise ifs the text of the minutes was "the players are > entitled to a full explanation, and this takes precedence". > > Best regards > > Alain > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150703/ead7da7d/attachment.html From JffEstrsn at aol.com Sun Jul 5 08:12:35 2015 From: JffEstrsn at aol.com (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:12:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5598CAD3.3040301@aol.com> I received this recently. Is it genuine or spam? If genuine I don't understand it as I have done nothing to affect my membership. Please see to it that my membership has not been disabled. I'd appreciate a response. Ciao,Jeff Easterson -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b Datum: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:00:03 +0200 Von: blml-request at rtflb.org An: jffestrsn at aol.com Your membership in the mailing list Blml has been disabled due to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated 22-Jun-2015. You will not get any more messages from this list until you re-enable your membership. You will receive 2 more reminders like this before your membership in the list is deleted. To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message (leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/confirm/blml/5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b You can also visit your membership page at http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/options/blml/jffestrsn%40aol.com On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such as your email address and whether you get digests or not. As a reminder, your membership password is fuokvifo If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner at blml-owner at rtflb.org --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Jul 5 08:35:22 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:35:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Fwd: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b In-Reply-To: <5598CAD3.3040301@aol.com> References: <5598CAD3.3040301@aol.com> Message-ID: <5598D02A.8000006@gmx.de> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] Fwd: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b Datum: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 08:12:35 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List I received this recently. Is it genuine or spam? If genuine I don't understand it as I have done nothing to affect my membership. Please see to it that my membership has not been disabled. I'd appreciate a response. Ciao,Jeff Easterson -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b Datum: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:00:03 +0200 Von: blml-request at rtflb.org An: jffestrsn at aol.com Your membership in the mailing list Blml has been disabled due to excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated 22-Jun-2015. You will not get any more messages from this list until you re-enable your membership. You will receive 2 more reminders like this before your membership in the list is deleted. To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message (leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/confirm/blml/5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b You can also visit your membership page at http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/options/blml/jffestrsn%40aol.com On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such as your email address and whether you get digests or not. As a reminder, your membership password is fuokvifo If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner at blml-owner at rtflb.org --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com Mon Jul 6 09:26:31 2015 From: henk.uijterwaal at gmail.com (Henk Uijterwaal) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 09:26:31 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Fwd: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b In-Reply-To: <5598D02A.8000006@gmx.de> References: <5598CAD3.3040301@aol.com> <5598D02A.8000006@gmx.de> Message-ID: <559A2DA7.20208@gmail.com> Jeff, others, On 05/07/2015 08:35, Jeff Easterson wrote: > I received this recently. Is it genuine or spam? If genuine I don't > understand it as I have done nothing to affect my membership. > > Please see to it that my membership has not been disabled. > > I'd appreciate a response. > > Ciao,Jeff Easterson A bounce occurs when a mail sent to the blml cannot be delivered to a subscriber. The most common causes for bounces are: * The mailbox of the receiver is full * Temporary hickup in one of the mail systems * The person gets a new email address and forgets about the BLML subscription. The list keeps track of the number of bounces for each address, if there are more than X bounces in a week, then it suspends the subscription and generates the message below. This effectively says "are you still there?". Until you respond, mail delivery stops. This avoids sending mails that cannot be delivered anyway. Bottom line: if you want mail delivery to continue, follow the link. If this frequently happens for your adress, check if your mailbox has space left, or complain to your sys-admin. Henk ps. Sorry for the slow reply, I was on vacation. > > -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- > Betreff: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b > Datum: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:00:03 +0200 > Von: blml-request at rtflb.org > An: jffestrsn at aol.com > > > > Your membership in the mailing list Blml has been disabled due to > excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated > 22-Jun-2015. You will not get any more messages from this list until > you re-enable your membership. You will receive 2 more reminders like > this before your membership in the list is deleted. > > To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message > (leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/confirm/blml/5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b > > > You can also visit your membership page at > > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/options/blml/jffestrsn%40aol.com > > On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such > as your email address and whether you get digests or not. As a > reminder, your membership password is > > fuokvifo > > If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner > at > > blml-owner at rtflb.org > > > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Henk Uijterwaal Email: henk(at)uijterwaal.nl http://www.uijterwaal.nl Phone: +31.6.55861746 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Read my blog at http://www.uijterwaal.nl/henks_hands.html From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Jul 6 15:44:35 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 15:44:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Fwd: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b In-Reply-To: <559A2DA7.20208@gmail.com> References: <5598CAD3.3040301@aol.com> <5598D02A.8000006@gmx.de> <559A2DA7.20208@gmail.com> Message-ID: <559A8643.3000904@gmx.de> Ciao Henk, I filled out the form although it seemed to be for new members and not to apply to my case. In any case I don't know what is causing the problem and do want to remain a member of blml. There was only room on the form for one email address. I have two: JffEstrsn at aol.com Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Am 06.07.2015 um 09:26 schrieb Henk Uijterwaal: > Jeff, others, > > On 05/07/2015 08:35, Jeff Easterson wrote: > >> I received this recently. Is it genuine or spam? If genuine I don't >> understand it as I have done nothing to affect my membership. >> >> Please see to it that my membership has not been disabled. >> >> I'd appreciate a response. >> >> Ciao,Jeff Easterson > A bounce occurs when a mail sent to the blml cannot be delivered > to a subscriber. The most common causes for bounces are: > > * The mailbox of the receiver is full > * Temporary hickup in one of the mail systems > * The person gets a new email address and forgets about the BLML > subscription. > > The list keeps track of the number of bounces for each address, if > there are more than X bounces in a week, then it suspends the > subscription and generates the message below. > > This effectively says "are you still there?". Until you respond, > mail delivery stops. This avoids sending mails that cannot be > delivered anyway. > > Bottom line: if you want mail delivery to continue, follow the > link. If this frequently happens for your adress, check if your > mailbox has space left, or complain to your sys-admin. > > Henk > > > ps. Sorry for the slow reply, I was on vacation. > > > > >> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- >> Betreff: confirm 5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b >> Datum: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:00:03 +0200 >> Von: blml-request at rtflb.org >> An: jffestrsn at aol.com >> >> >> >> Your membership in the mailing list Blml has been disabled due to >> excessive bounces The last bounce received from you was dated >> 22-Jun-2015. You will not get any more messages from this list until >> you re-enable your membership. You will receive 2 more reminders like >> this before your membership in the list is deleted. >> >> To re-enable your membership, you can simply respond to this message >> (leaving the Subject: line intact), or visit the confirmation page at >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/confirm/blml/5924ac242837088d8a4fa41fff59987e054ef74b >> >> >> You can also visit your membership page at >> >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/options/blml/jffestrsn%40aol.com >> >> On your membership page, you can change various delivery options such >> as your email address and whether you get digests or not. As a >> reminder, your membership password is >> >> fuokvifo >> >> If you have any questions or problems, you can contact the list owner >> at >> >> blml-owner at rtflb.org >> >> >> >> >> --- >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> >> >> >> >> --- >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Blml mailing list >> Blml at rtflb.org >> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml >> > --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Jul 11 15:27:45 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:27:45 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Postings? Message-ID: <55A119D1.3030706@gmx.de> I haven't been receiving any blml postings for the last week or two. I don't want my membership suspended and don't know why you are getting "bounces". Please see to it that I am restored to the list. Have two email addresses: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de and JffEstrsn at aol.com Thanks, Jeff Easterson --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sat Jul 11 15:54:46 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:54:46 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Postings? In-Reply-To: <55A119D1.3030706@gmx.de> References: <55A119D1.3030706@gmx.de> Message-ID: <55A12026.5050206@t-online.de> This went to the list and got through alright. Just kind of quiet here, Jeff, nothing to worry about.... Am 11.07.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Jeff Easterson: > I haven't been receiving any blml postings for the last week or two. I > don't want my membership suspended and don't know why you are getting > "bounces". Please see to it that I am restored to the list. > > Have two email addresses: > > Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de > > and > > JffEstrsn at aol.com > > Thanks, Jeff Easterson > > > > --- > Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Jul 11 15:58:16 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:58:16 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Postings? In-Reply-To: <55A119D1.3030706@gmx.de> References: <55A119D1.3030706@gmx.de> Message-ID: <55A120F8.1090000@gmx.de> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] Postings? Datum: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 15:27:45 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List I haven't been receiving any blml postings for the last week or two. I don't want my membership suspended and don't know why you are getting "bounces". Please see to it that I am restored to the list. Have two email addresses: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de and JffEstrsn at aol.com Thanks, Jeff Easterson --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sat Jul 11 16:00:54 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 16:00:54 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Postings? In-Reply-To: <55A12026.5050206@t-online.de> References: <55A119D1.3030706@gmx.de> <55A12026.5050206@t-online.de> Message-ID: <55A12196.9010206@gmx.de> Thanks, JE Werde ich Dich in Mautern oder Pula sehen? Am 11.07.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Matthias Berghaus: > This went to the list and got through alright. Just kind of quiet here, > Jeff, nothing to worry about.... > > Am 11.07.2015 um 15:27 schrieb Jeff Easterson: >> I haven't been receiving any blml postings for the last week or two. I >> don't want my membership suspended and don't know why you are getting >> "bounces". Please see to it that I am restored to the list. >> >> Have two email addresses: >> >> Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de >> >> and >> >> JffEstrsn at aol.com >> >> Thanks, Jeff Easterson >> >> >> >> --- >> Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Jul 13 12:05:41 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:05:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Postings from blml Message-ID: <55A38D75.2040204@gmx.de> I am having a problem with aol; thus the bounces. Please send all postings from blml to my other email address: Thanks, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Jul 13 12:12:56 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:12:56 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Postings from blml In-Reply-To: <55A38D75.2040204@gmx.de> References: <55A38D75.2040204@gmx.de> Message-ID: <55A38F28.80509@gmx.de> -------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: [BLML] Postings from blml Datum: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 12:05:41 +0200 Von: Jeff Easterson Antwort an: Bridge Laws Mailing List An: Bridge Laws Mailing List I am having a problem with aol; thus the bounces. Please send all postings from blml to my other email address: Thanks, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Blml mailing list Blml at rtflb.org http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Mon Jul 13 14:53:35 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:53:35 +0200 Subject: [BLML] membership Message-ID: <55A3B4CF.6060208@gmx.de> Ahoj Henk, Have been having trouble with aol and no emails have been getting through, in either direction. Have now filled out the application for a new membership giving an alternative email address. (Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de) I hope this will be sufficient. Actually I am an old member but couldn't find a place on the formula to change or add an email address so filled it out as application for new membership. Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From adam at tameware.com Wed Jul 15 04:39:53 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 22:39:53 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Casebooks are back Message-ID: The Fall 2011 (Seattle) casebook with comments is posted here: http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2011SeattleCasebook.pdf We're now working on the Spring 2015 (New Orleans) casebook and hope to post its comments and those from 2012-2014 over the next few months. All the ACBL casebooks published so far are available here: http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ Right now commentary is available only through 2011. If you want to discuss a particular case from Seattle or any other casebook please start a separate thread whose subject indicates the casebook name, the case number, and whether it is an NABC+ case (heard by a player committee) or a non-NABC+ case (heard by a panel of TDs.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150715/72ec53a9/attachment.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jul 15 06:35:31 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 00:35:31 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert Message-ID: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> The ACBL Alert Procedure has the following condition: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." I believe a clarification is needed to the standard: "If the missing Alert is very common, and the player can ask without causing a UI problem, he must ask to protect himself"; I proposed this with some examples in a post back in 2007. In Case 2, the committee ruled accordingly, but the Director did not. The auction: N E S W P P 1S P 2C P 4S AP 2C was Drury but was not Alerted. East, with AQJ84 of clubs, would have doubled an Alerted 2C. East decided that he could not safely ask about 2C; if it was natural, he would pass UI to West, who could no longer lead a club against the final contract if he had a logical alternative. He did wait a few seconds for South to Alert. And I agree with East's decision, because I was just in the converse situation, in which 2C was not Alerted because I don't play Drury. Our auction was P-1S; 2C-2H; 3H-4H, and West led a club; I called the director as soon as I saw the club lead. It turned out that the lead made no difference, so I didn't need to claim that a diamond lead was a logical alternative and request an adjusted score. In theory, West could have protected East, by asking about 2C after the 4S bid made it likely (but not certain) that 2C was Drury; had he asked, East could have withdrawn his pass. However, West had no need to ask at that time, and the Committee didn't expect him to work out both that this would help and that it wouldn't be a violation of the rule not to ask a question for partner's benefit. From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Wed Jul 15 07:16:33 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 01:16:33 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives Message-ID: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> S W N E 1N P P X (1N=10-12, X=at least a queen better) P 2S! P 3C (2S alerted as minor-suit Stayman, intended as signoff) P 3H P 3S AP West holds QT932 Q652 QJ3 6. What are the logical alternatives absent the UI? If West assumes that East has a strong NT, then 3C is some type of game try, so pass by West is not a logical alternative but 3H and 3S are. If West assumes that East has an unspecified strong hand, then 3C is natural and pass by West is a logical alternative. The directors should determine this information before taking a poll. If Wests are polled with the information that 3C is a game try, nobody will pass; either the table result stands or possibly a poll will say that West should bid 4S. If Wests are polled with the information that 3C is a natural strong hand with clubs, then pass is a logical alternative. Also, I see no evidence in the committee ruling for its claim, "the committee believed that a significant number of West's peers would pass" when only one of nine polled players passed. This looks like the committee saying, "There was a poll but we are going to ignore the poll." From g3 at nige1.com Wed Jul 15 12:05:45 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 11:05:45 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> Message-ID: [David Grabiner] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives S W N E 1N P P X (1N=10-12, X=at least a queen better) P 2S! P 3C (2S alerted as minor-suit Stayman, intended as signoff) P 3H P 3S AP West holds QT932 Q652 QJ3 6. What are the logical alternatives absent the UI? If West assumes that East has a strong NT, then 3C is some type of game try, so pass by West is not a logical alternative but 3H and 3S are. If West assumes that East has an unspecified strong hand, then 3C is natural and pass by West is a logical alternative. The directors should determine this information before taking a poll. If Wests are polled with the information that 3C is a game try, nobody will pass; either the table result stands or possibly a poll will say that West should bid 4S. If Wests are polled with the information that 3C is a natural strong hand with clubs, then pass is a logical alternative. Also, I see no evidence in the committee ruling for its claim, "the committee believed that a significant number of West's peers would pass" when only one of nine polled players passed. This looks like the committee saying, "There was a poll but we are going to ignore the poll." [Nigel] East's alert is UI to West, which suggests bidding 3H rather than passing. Without the UI most Wests would bid on over East's 3C but the poll indicates that pass is a (presumably less successful) logical alternative and that seems the correct ruling. From g3 at nige1.com Wed Jul 15 13:41:23 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:41:23 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert In-Reply-To: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> References: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> Message-ID: <9D0B597B523B4AD1867B130FB69BCA41@G3> [David Grabiner] The ACBL Alert Procedure has the following condition: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." I believe a clarification is needed to the standard: "If the missing Alert is very common, and the player can ask without causing a UI problem, he must ask to protect himself"; I proposed this with some examples in a post back in 2007. In Case 2, the committee ruled accordingly, but the Director did not. The auction: N E S W P P 1S P 2C P 4S AP 2C was Drury but was not Alerted. East, with AQJ84 of clubs, would have doubled an Alerted 2C. East decided that he could not safely ask about 2C; if it was natural, he would pass UI to West, who could no longer lead a club against the final contract if he had a logical alternative. He did wait a few seconds for South to Alert. And I agree with East's decision, because I was just in the converse situation, in which 2C was not Alerted because I don't play Drury. Our auction was P-1S; 2C-2H; 3H-4H, and West led a club; I called the director as soon as I saw the club lead. It turned out that the lead made no difference, so I didn't need to claim that a diamond lead was a logical alternative and request an adjusted score. In theory, West could have protected East, by asking about 2C after the 4S bid made it likely (but not certain) that 2C was Drury; had he asked, East could have withdrawn his pass. However, West had no need to ask at that time, and the Committee didn't expect him to work out both that this would help and that it wouldn't be a violation of the rule not to ask a question for partner's benefit. [Nigel] The "protect yourself" rule is daft because whenever it turns out that the relevant call wasn't alertable, your question has compromised partner, handicapping him with UI restrictions. There should be no onus on the innocent side to allow for their opponents' alerting infractions. From hermandw at skynet.be Wed Jul 15 15:43:33 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 15:43:33 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert In-Reply-To: <9D0B597B523B4AD1867B130FB69BCA41@G3> References: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> <9D0B597B523B4AD1867B130FB69BCA41@G3> Message-ID: <55A66385.6090904@skynet.be> Nigel Guthrie schreef: > > [Nigel] > The "protect yourself" rule is daft because whenever it turns out that the > relevant call wasn't alertable, your question has compromised partner, > handicapping him with UI restrictions. There should be no onus on the > innocent side to allow for their opponents' alerting infractions. > I agree with Nigel. However. I ruled in exact the same fashion in two cases in Troms?. Why? because that was behind screens, wher the UI considerations are not in effect. So maybe this discussion should be clearly marked: non-screen only. Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > > From adam at tameware.com Wed Jul 15 23:56:03 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 17:56:03 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert In-Reply-To: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> References: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> Message-ID: I agree that the regulation is pernicious and said so in my comments. But it might have some value if worded differently, along the lines of David's suggestion. Contrast with case Non-NABC+ONE On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:35 AM, David Grabiner < grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu> wrote: > The ACBL Alert Procedure has the following condition: "Players who, by > experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to > Alert > a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." > > I believe a clarification is needed to the standard: "If the missing Alert > is > very common, and the player can ask without causing a UI problem, he must > ask to > protect himself"; I proposed this with some examples in a post back in > 2007. > > In Case 2, the committee ruled accordingly, but the Director did not. > > The auction: > N E S W > P P 1S P > 2C P 4S AP > > 2C was Drury but was not Alerted. East, with AQJ84 of clubs, would have > doubled > an Alerted 2C. East decided that he could not safely ask about 2C; if it > was > natural, he would pass UI to West, who could no longer lead a club against > the > final contract if he had a logical alternative. He did wait a few seconds > for > South to Alert. > > And I agree with East's decision, because I was just in the converse > situation, > in which 2C was not Alerted because I don't play Drury. Our auction was > P-1S; > 2C-2H; 3H-4H, and West led a club; I called the director as soon as I saw > the > club lead. It turned out that the lead made no difference, so I didn't > need to > claim that a diamond lead was a logical alternative and request an adjusted > score. > > In theory, West could have protected East, by asking about 2C after the 4S > bid > made it likely (but not certain) that 2C was Drury; had he asked, East > could > have withdrawn his pass. However, West had no need to ask at that time, > and the > Committee didn't expect him to work out both that this would help and that > it > wouldn't be a violation of the rule not to ask a question for partner's > benefit. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150715/565f956c/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Thu Jul 16 00:04:42 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 18:04:42 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> Message-ID: I'm with Nigel. One of nine polled passed. Are we to call this insignificant, and if so why? Further the poll is missing important information. In order to apply Law 16 we need to know how many of the 3H bidders seriously considered passing. Further, three of those polled were TDs. If we restrict the poll to West's peers, per Law 16, then one of six passed. This seems a significant number to me. We'd need a larger sample to know for sure. The committee membership helps enlarge the sample, to the extent that it is composed of West's peers. Remember that polling is used to help inform the AC's judgement, not to substitute for it. Circumstances are different for TDs, who are presumed to be knowledge about the laws but not necessarily high level bridge. It may be useful to refer to the specific wording of 16B1b: 1. A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom it is judged some might select it. On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:05 AM, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > [David Grabiner] > Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives > S W N E > 1N P P X (1N=10-12, X=at least a queen better) > P 2S! P 3C (2S alerted as minor-suit Stayman, intended as signoff) > P 3H P 3S > AP > West holds QT932 Q652 QJ3 6. > > What are the logical alternatives absent the UI? If West assumes that East > has > a strong NT, then 3C is some type of game try, so pass by West is not a > logical > alternative but 3H and 3S are. If West assumes that East has an > unspecified > strong hand, then 3C is natural and pass by West is a logical alternative. > > The directors should determine this information before taking a poll. If > Wests > are polled with the information that 3C is a game try, nobody will pass; > either > the table result stands or possibly a poll will say that West should bid > 4S. > If > Wests are polled with the information that 3C is a natural strong hand with > clubs, then pass is a logical alternative. > > Also, I see no evidence in the committee ruling for its claim, "the > committee > believed that a significant number of West's peers would pass" when only > one > of > nine polled players passed. This looks like the committee saying, "There > was a > poll but we are going to ignore the poll." > > [Nigel] > East's alert is UI to West, which suggests bidding 3H rather than passing. > Without the UI most Wests would bid on over East's 3C but the poll > indicates > that pass is a (presumably less successful) logical alternative and that > seems the correct ruling. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150715/d09fc318/attachment-0001.html From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Thu Jul 16 02:32:12 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:32:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert In-Reply-To: <55A66385.6090904@skynet.be> References: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> <9D0B597B523B4AD1867B130FB69BCA41@G3> <55A66385.6090904@skynet.be> Message-ID: <2A61D6C9494B475BAAC3C72B2DE9CA3D@erdos> "Herman De Wael" writes: >To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" >Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:43 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself >after missing alert >Nigel Guthrie schreef: > >> [Nigel] >> The "protect yourself" rule is daft because whenever it turns out that the >> relevant call wasn't alertable, your question has compromised partner, >> handicapping him with UI restrictions. There should be no onus on the >> innocent side to allow for their opponents' alerting infractions. > > I agree with Nigel. > However. > I ruled in exact the same fashion in two cases in Troms?. > Why? > because that was behind screens, wher the UI considerations are not in > effect. > So maybe this discussion should be clearly marked: non-screen only. > Herman. And I agree with this point. If you can protect yourself without causing a UI issue, then you must ask to protect yourself. In this example, asking about an unalerted Drury call creates significant UI, and thus East did not have to protect himself. One common example in which asking is safe is a 2D opening. If it isn't alerted, I still check the convention card so that I can understand the rest of the auction; forgotten alerts of Flannery and mini-Roman are common. I don't ask unless there is no convention card visible, but I do often have to pick up or turn over a convention card which is on the table, which passes the same UI that asking would. From swillner at nhcc.net Thu Jul 16 02:53:46 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 20:53:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert In-Reply-To: References: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> Message-ID: <55A7009A.4050009@nhcc.net> On 2015-07-15 5:56 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I agree that the regulation is pernicious and said so in my comments. > But it might have some value if worded differently The EBU has wording below (Blue Book 2A2). Key words seem to me to be "implausible" and "without putting their side?s interests at risk." It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking further clarification without putting their side?s interests at risk (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or alerting the opposition), failure to do so may prejudice their right to redress. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 16 13:09:57 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:09:57 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> Message-ID: <07c24637c6ced6d24df87eabfdcdecdb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 16.07.2015 00:04, Adam Wildavsky a ?crit?: > I'm with Nigel. One of nine polled passed. Are we to call this > insignificant, and if so why? Further the poll is missing important > information. In order to apply Law 16 we need to know how many of the > 3H bidders seriously considered passing. Further, three of those > polled were TDs. If we restrict the poll to West's peers, per Law 16, > then one of six passed. This seems a significant number to me. One out of six isn't statistically significant. It is chi-square-compatible with the fact that only 1% of the total population would pass. Ten out of sixty would be. I think three out of six would be, too. About this precise case : in my style 3C is very, very strong, something similar to an Acol 2-bid, and West has about 5 HCP more than he promised. Whence pass isn't a LA. The only LAs are 3H and 3NT. But this depends on how this pair plays it. From bridgeinindia at gmail.com Thu Jul 16 19:04:30 2015 From: bridgeinindia at gmail.com (BridgeinIndia) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 22:34:30 +0530 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Casebooks are back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mr Adam Widavsky, Our greetings to you. I am Dr Raghavan from Chennai of Tamil nadu in India, maintaining a website for the past 15 years, without ant advertisements only for bridge game. View> http://www.bridgeindia.com/ We maintain this as a free service to bridge, spending from our personal savings not expecting any returns. We have published the case books which you mentioned in a mail to BLML ( I am a member of BLML) We offer our voluntary and free service to your work like case books etc since you are a world class player playing tourneys, also work with WBF etc. We suggest You give a trial work pf preparing PDF pages for one case book. We shall do it and send it back to you. Kindly forget my suggestion if you have a better alternative. We are not practicing medicine after our retirement as Chief Medical Officer of Ashok Leyland ( Truck manufacturer) and hence have some time to spare for Bridge. On 15th July, a visitor from Washington DC viewed 44 pages. - details as attachment Half of the visitors to our site are from USA - clicking the map shows. ? *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.Editor at BridgeIndia.com BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com Ph =+91-044-23761038Mobile = 9940273749? * *------------------------------------------------------------*? On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > The Fall 2011 (Seattle) casebook with comments is posted here: > > http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2011SeattleCasebook.pdf > > We're now working on the Spring 2015 (New Orleans) casebook and hope to > post its comments and those from 2012-2014 over the next few months. > > All the ACBL casebooks published so far are available here: > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ > > Right now commentary is available only through 2011. > > If you want to discuss a particular case from Seattle or any other > casebook please start a separate thread whose subject indicates the > casebook name, the case number, and whether it is an NABC+ case (heard by a > player committee) or a non-NABC+ case (heard by a panel of TDs.) > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150716/adb5c997/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Details of Visit by visitor from Washington DC using Verizon.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 601617 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150716/adb5c997/attachment-0001.pdf From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Sat Jul 18 02:02:10 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:02:10 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 2: responsibility to protect yourself after missing alert In-Reply-To: <55A7009A.4050009@nhcc.net> References: <7A36E3FA1B8F48EF865143770A873FD7@erdos> <55A7009A.4050009@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <1BCDBEF58C2C4C4AB59DF8D54C31A095@erdos> "Steve Willner" writes: > On 2015-07-15 5:56 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >> I agree that the regulation is pernicious and said so in my comments. >> But it might have some value if worded differently > > The EBU has wording below (Blue Book 2A2). Key words seem to me to be > "implausible" and "without putting their side?s interests at risk." > > > It is expected that experienced players will protect themselves in > obvious misinformation cases. If such players receive an explanation > which is implausible, and they are able to protect themselves by seeking > further clarification without putting their side?s interests at risk > (e.g. by transmitting unauthorised information or alerting the > opposition), failure to do so may prejudice their right to redress. This is an even weaker standard that I recommend; failure to alert is not always "implausible". It seems to apply to explanations which are inconsistent with the previous bidding, such as "weak jump shift" explained when the bid is not a jump, or "15-17 points" for a 1NT overcall by a passed hand. It would also apply to bids which are always alertable, such as the World Championship case in which a Lightner double (altertable under tournament rules) was not alerted. But a 2C response to a 1S third-seat opening could plausibly be natural, so the failure to alert does not create an "implausible" explanation. And that is also why there is the UI issue; if the next player asks, he might receive the response, "Natural", and now partner has UI. From adam at tameware.com Sun Jul 19 02:08:36 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:08:36 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: <07c24637c6ced6d24df87eabfdcdecdb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> <07c24637c6ced6d24df87eabfdcdecdb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: I agree that one out of six is not statistically significant. That means that the poll is not dispositive. What then is the AC to do? It must rely on its best judgment. Another question is what the TD ought to do. I would say poll more players, but that's not always practical. Has anyone come across written polling guidelines? I once wrote up a proposal, but I don't recall whether it made it into either my casebook comments or a BLML post. On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:09 AM, agot wrote: > Le 16.07.2015 00:04, Adam Wildavsky a ?crit : > > I'm with Nigel. One of nine polled passed. Are we to call this > > insignificant, and if so why? Further the poll is missing important > > information. In order to apply Law 16 we need to know how many of the > > 3H bidders seriously considered passing. Further, three of those > > polled were TDs. If we restrict the poll to West's peers, per Law 16, > > then one of six passed. This seems a significant number to me. > > One out of six isn't statistically significant. It is > chi-square-compatible with the fact that only 1% of the total population > would pass. > Ten out of sixty would be. I think three out of six would be, too. > > About this precise case : in my style 3C is very, very strong, something > similar to an Acol 2-bid, and West has about 5 HCP more than he > promised. Whence pass isn't a LA. The only LAs are 3H and 3NT. But this > depends on how this pair plays it. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150719/24ddcb13/attachment.html From adam at tameware.com Sun Jul 19 02:21:46 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:21:46 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Casebooks are back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Doh! I violated two of my own rules: 1. Copy and paste links, don't retype them. 2. Test links before pressing "Send." The correct URL is bridgeindia.com On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > Thanks for writing! I am familiar with the bridgeinindia.com site. I've > found it useful in the past. I'm looking forward to visiting Chennai later > this year. > > You replied to the list but I expect you meant to reply to me personally. > I've moved the list to Bcc, and I will continue the conversation in a > separate message. > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, BridgeinIndia > wrote: > >> Dear Mr Adam Widavsky, >> >> Our greetings to you. >> >> I am Dr Raghavan from Chennai of Tamil nadu in India, maintaining a >> website for the past 15 years, without ant advertisements only for bridge >> game. View> http://www.bridgeindia.com/ We maintain this as a free >> service to bridge, spending from our personal savings not expecting any >> returns. >> >> We have published the case books which you mentioned in a mail to BLML ( >> I am a member of BLML) >> >> We offer our voluntary and free service to your work like case books etc >> since you are a world class player playing tourneys, also work with WBF >> etc. >> >> We suggest You give a trial work pf preparing PDF pages for one case >> book. We shall do it and send it back to you. Kindly forget my suggestion >> if you have a better alternative. >> >> We are not practicing medicine after our retirement as Chief Medical >> Officer of Ashok Leyland ( Truck manufacturer) and hence have some time to >> spare for Bridge. >> >> On 15th July, a visitor from Washington DC viewed 44 pages. - details as >> attachment >> >> Half of the visitors to our site are from USA - clicking the map shows. >> ? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.Editor at BridgeIndia.com >> BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com >> Ph =+91-044-23761038 <%2B91-044-23761038>Mobile >> = 9940273749? * >> *------------------------------------------------------------*? >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Adam Wildavsky >> wrote: >> >>> The Fall 2011 (Seattle) casebook with comments is posted here: >>> >>> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2011SeattleCasebook.pdf >>> >>> We're now working on the Spring 2015 (New Orleans) casebook and hope to >>> post its comments and those from 2012-2014 over the next few months. >>> >>> All the ACBL casebooks published so far are available here: >>> >>> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >>> >>> Right now commentary is available only through 2011. >>> >>> If you want to discuss a particular case from Seattle or any other >>> casebook please start a separate thread whose subject indicates the >>> casebook name, the case number, and whether it is an NABC+ case (heard by a >>> player committee) or a non-NABC+ case (heard by a panel of TDs.) >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150719/988ddae5/attachment.html From jfusselman at gmail.com Sun Jul 19 05:49:25 2015 From: jfusselman at gmail.com (Jerry Fusselman) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:49:25 -0500 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> <07c24637c6ced6d24df87eabfdcdecdb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Statistical significance is the wrong benchmark. With small sample sizes, it biases the decisions in favor of allowing UI. Classical NHST (Null Hypothesis Significance Testing), which people common imagine is relevant to statistical significance, is just silly to apply to bridge rulings, but a Bayesian approach can make sense. Treat it as a simple problem of decision theory. The problem is that several directors state that it is important to "know your customers" and use that "knowledge" to weigh decisions, which is equivalent to giving some customers better results than others with identical facts---I'm against that. Assuming you want some objectivity in bridge rulings, you should have rules and procedures in mind. And if so, NHST is of no use to this task. Jerry Fusselman On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > I agree that one out of six is not statistically significant. That means > that the poll is not dispositive. What then is the AC to do? It must rely > on its best judgment. > > Another question is what the TD ought to do. I would say poll more > players, but that's not always practical. > > Has anyone come across written polling guidelines? I once wrote up a > proposal, but I don't recall whether it made it into either my casebook > comments or a BLML post. > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:09 AM, agot wrote: > >> Le 16.07.2015 00:04, Adam Wildavsky a ?crit : >> > I'm with Nigel. One of nine polled passed. Are we to call this >> > insignificant, and if so why? Further the poll is missing important >> > information. In order to apply Law 16 we need to know how many of the >> > 3H bidders seriously considered passing. Further, three of those >> > polled were TDs. If we restrict the poll to West's peers, per Law 16, >> > then one of six passed. This seems a significant number to me. >> >> One out of six isn't statistically significant. It is >> chi-square-compatible with the fact that only 1% of the total population >> would pass. >> Ten out of sixty would be. I think three out of six would be, too. >> >> About this precise case : in my style 3C is very, very strong, something >> similar to an Acol 2-bid, and West has about 5 HCP more than he >> promised. Whence pass isn't a LA. The only LAs are 3H and 3NT. But this >> depends on how this pair plays it. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150719/a3761456/attachment-0001.html From adam at tameware.com Sun Jul 19 02:13:21 2015 From: adam at tameware.com (Adam Wildavsky) Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 20:13:21 -0400 Subject: [BLML] ACBL Casebooks are back In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for writing! I am familiar with the bridgeinindia.com site. I've found it useful in the past. I'm looking forward to visiting Chennai later this year. You replied to the list but I expect you meant to reply to me personally. I've moved the list to Bcc, and I will continue the conversation in a separate message. On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:04 PM, BridgeinIndia wrote: > Dear Mr Adam Widavsky, > > Our greetings to you. > > I am Dr Raghavan from Chennai of Tamil nadu in India, maintaining a > website for the past 15 years, without ant advertisements only for bridge > game. View> http://www.bridgeindia.com/ We maintain this as a free > service to bridge, spending from our personal savings not expecting any > returns. > > We have published the case books which you mentioned in a mail to BLML ( I > am a member of BLML) > > We offer our voluntary and free service to your work like case books etc > since you are a world class player playing tourneys, also work with WBF > etc. > > We suggest You give a trial work pf preparing PDF pages for one case book. > We shall do it and send it back to you. Kindly forget my suggestion if you > have a better alternative. > > We are not practicing medicine after our retirement as Chief Medical > Officer of Ashok Leyland ( Truck manufacturer) and hence have some time to > spare for Bridge. > > On 15th July, a visitor from Washington DC viewed 44 pages. - details as > attachment > > Half of the visitors to our site are from USA - clicking the map shows. > ? > > > > > > > > *With RegardsDr Raghavan.P.S.Editor at BridgeIndia.com > BridgeinIndia at gmail.com www.BridgeIndia.com > Ph =+91-044-23761038 <%2B91-044-23761038>Mobile > = 9940273749? * > *------------------------------------------------------------*? > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > >> The Fall 2011 (Seattle) casebook with comments is posted here: >> >> http://web2.acbl.org/casebooks/2011SeattleCasebook.pdf >> >> We're now working on the Spring 2015 (New Orleans) casebook and hope to >> post its comments and those from 2012-2014 over the next few months. >> >> All the ACBL casebooks published so far are available here: >> >> http://www.acbl.org/tournaments_page/nabcs/past-nabcs/nabc-casebooks/ >> >> Right now commentary is available only through 2011. >> >> If you want to discuss a particular case from Seattle or any other >> casebook please start a separate thread whose subject indicates the >> casebook name, the case number, and whether it is an NABC+ case (heard by a >> player committee) or a non-NABC+ case (heard by a panel of TDs.) >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150719/686c3baf/attachment.html From hermandw at skynet.be Sun Jul 19 12:08:19 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:08:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> <07c24637c6ced6d24df87eabfdcdecdb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55AB7713.70809@skynet.be> Jerry Fusselman schreef: > Statistical significance is the wrong benchmark. With small sample > sizes, it biases the decisions in favor of allowing UI. Classical NHST > (Null Hypothesis Significance Testing), which people common imagine is > relevant to statistical significance, is just silly to apply to bridge > rulings, but a Bayesian approach can make sense. Treat it as a simple > problem of decision theory. > You have used a few too many (non-bridge) technical words. Could you explain for the non-statisticians among us, because (and I have done statistical subjects at University level!) > The problem is that several directors state that it is important to > "know your customers" and use that "knowledge" to weigh decisions, which > is equivalent to giving some customers better results than others with > identical facts---I'm against that. > Well, seeing as the laws define LA for "class of player", there is no alternative, whether you like it or not. Herman. > Assuming you want some objectivity in bridge rulings, you should have > rules and procedures in mind. And if so, NHST is of no use to this task. > > Jerry Fusselman > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 7:08 PM, Adam Wildavsky > wrote: > > I agree that one out of six is not statistically significant. That > means that the poll is not dispositive. What then is the AC to do? > It must rely on its best judgment. > > Another question is what the TD ought to do. I would say poll more > players, but that's not always practical. > > Has anyone come across written polling guidelines? I once wrote up a > proposal, but I don't recall whether it made it into either my > casebook comments or a BLML post. > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:09 AM, agot > wrote: > > Le 16.07.2015 00:04, Adam Wildavsky a ?crit : > > I'm with Nigel. One of nine polled passed. Are we to call this > > insignificant, and if so why? Further the poll is missing important > > information. In order to apply Law 16 we need to know how many of the > > 3H bidders seriously considered passing. Further, three of those > > polled were TDs. If we restrict the poll to West's peers, per Law 16, > > then one of six passed. This seems a significant number to me. > > One out of six isn't statistically significant. It is > chi-square-compatible with the fact that only 1% of the total > population > would pass. > Ten out of sixty would be. I think three out of six would be, too. > > About this precise case : in my style 3C is very, very strong, > something > similar to an Acol 2-bid, and West has about 5 HCP more than he > promised. Whence pass isn't a LA. The only LAs are 3H and 3NT. > But this > depends on how this pair plays it. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml > From g3 at nige1.com Sun Jul 19 14:30:07 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 13:30:07 +0100 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logicalalternatives In-Reply-To: <55AB7713.70809@skynet.be> References: <00BAD8304AE344E6874E352393548B2B@erdos> <07c24637c6ced6d24df87eabfdcdecdb@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AB7713.70809@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1EE377F31BC2433AAA98D3BC7338E0C6@G3> [Herman] Well, seeing as the laws define LA for "class of player", there is no alternative, whether you like it or not. [Nigel] IMO 1 in a sample of 6 is statistically significant if you are establishing whether a player might have taken an action. Anyway, realistically, a poll is one of the few available tests with any semblance of objectivity. I agree with Jerry Fusselman that the law-book should define "class of player" to be "fairly typical of players in this field". Any other criterion places players like Helgemo above the law. Law-makers should strive to rely on a director's subjective judgement, as little as possible. From Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de Sun Jul 19 18:27:24 2015 From: Jeff.Easterson at gmx.de (Jeff Easterson) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:27:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinion Message-ID: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> As TD you are called to a table. The players are average club players, in fact that is a generous estimate of their ability. The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the hand has been completed. A defender has revoked, that is established (all at the table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer had lost 3 tricks. The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick but his side won 2 tricks afterwards. A simple case you assume, one trick shifted to the declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract exactly fulfilled. But, of course you ask the declarer if he could win more than 9 tricks if the revoke had not been made. He says that he could win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether. He demonstrates how he'd do this and it is convincing. So (again a simple case) you decide to give him 10 tricks. But now the defenders speak up and say that he could win all of the rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the hand. This is shown to be true as well. What now? How do you decide? Has the defender been so upset by the revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks? And thus you give him 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win the rest? Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only 9 tricks? Ciao, JE --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr?ft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From svenpran at online.no Sun Jul 19 19:45:14 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 19:45:14 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinion In-Reply-To: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> References: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> Message-ID: <001e01d0c24a$ab82d130$02887390$@online.no> > Jeff Easterson > Sendt: 19. juli 2015 18:27 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: [BLML] your opinion > > As TD you are called to a table. The players are average club players, in fact > that is a generous estimate of their ability. > > The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the hand > has been completed. A defender has revoked, that is established (all at the > table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer had lost 3 tricks. > The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick but his side won 2 > tricks afterwards. A simple case you assume, one trick shifted to the > declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract exactly fulfilled. But, of course > you ask the declarer if he could win more than 9 tricks if the revoke had > not been made. He says that he could > win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether. He demonstrates how he'd do > this and it is convincing. So (again a simple case) you decide to give him 10 > tricks. But now the defenders speak up and say that he could win all of the > rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the hand. > This is shown to be true as well. > > What now? How do you decide? Has the defender been so upset by the > revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks? And thus you give him > 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win the > rest? Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only > 9 tricks? [Sven Pran] Interesting question. In my opinion the Director shall not use Law 64C and award "extra" tricks unless the table result is a consequence of the revoke (for instance that he had a wrong count of defenders' hands). The "extra" compensation shall be limited to such consequence from the revoke. But once the Director is satisfied that declarer selected an unfavorable line of play because of the revoke then defenders objection that he misplayed the hand cannot reduce this "extra" compensation unless they show that the alleged misplay is completely unrelated to the revoke as such. Welcome back in "regular" participation! Regards Sven From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jul 19 21:32:24 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:32:24 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinion In-Reply-To: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> References: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:27:24 +0200, Jeff Easterson wrote: > As TD you are called to a table. The players are average club players, > in fact that is a generous estimate of their ability. > > The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the > hand has been completed. A defender has revoked, that is established > (all at the table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer had > lost 3 tricks. The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick but > his side won 2 tricks afterwards. A simple case you assume, one trick > shifted to the declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract exactly > fulfilled. But, of course you ask the declarer if he could win more > than 9 tricks if the revoke had not been made. He says that he could > win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether. He demonstrates how he'd do > this and it is convincing. So (again a simple case) you decide to give > him 10 tricks. But now the defenders speak up and say that he could win > all of the rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the hand. > This is shown to be true as well. > > What now? How do you decide? Has the defender been so upset by the > revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks? And thus you give him > 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win the > rest? Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only > 9 tricks? > IMO, these are two seperate cases: 1. The revoke which has cost declarer two tricks. 2. A misplay by declarer. So, it is 3H+1 for both sides (64C). Then, you decide whether declarer has committed a Serious Error (12C) in the subsequent play (which, going by Ton's Commentary, would be very rare indeed). If so, he is only entitled to 9 tricks, with defenders still getting 3H+1. Regards, Petrus From petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at Sun Jul 19 21:45:01 2015 From: petrus at stift-kremsmuenster.at (Petrus Schuster OSB) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 21:45:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? Message-ID: Yesterday, after P - P - 1S - P 2D - P - P - ? a player N/VUL against VUL balanced with 2H holding Jx KTxxx xxx Qxx Opponents then reached 4S, as 2D was Drury (not alerted). I adjusted to 2D+1. The decision was not appealed, but the AC chairman privately voiced the opinion that 2H was "outrageous, gambling" and would have invoked 12C. 1. Your opinion? 2. If an AC judged some action a Serious Error which would not meet the criteria of Ton's Commentary (which is part of the Austrian Regulations and therefore binding), would this be a matter of Law where the AC cannot overrule the TD (92B3)? Regards, Petrus -- Erstellt mit Operas E-Mail-Modul: http://www.opera.com/mail/ From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 19 22:56:54 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 16:56:54 -0400 Subject: [BLML] your opinion In-Reply-To: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> References: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> Message-ID: <55AC0F16.6070501@nhcc.net> On 2015-07-19 12:27 PM, Jeff Easterson wrote: > Has the defender been so upset by the revoke that he didn't win the > rest of the tricks? I think you meant "declarer," but "so upset" isn't an excuse. You just analyze the play as it went and as it might have gone had the revoke not happened. > And thus you give him 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the > line of play is to win the rest? As far as I can tell, this is just an ordinary adjusted score situation. If the result without the revoke would have been better for declarer, give him that. (Outside the ACBL, the score can be weighted.) You also consider L12C1b (SEWoG) in the usual way. > Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only 9 > tricks? I don't know what you mean by "binding." If, say, the revoke was an irrelevant discard, there's no reason to expect the line of play to have changed had the revoke not occurred, and there's no damage. If on the other hand the revoke diverted declarer from a winning line, then there was damage, and you only review for SEWoG. I don't think there's enough information in the original message to form an opinion on the actual ruling. From swillner at nhcc.net Sun Jul 19 23:11:12 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 17:11:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AC1270.4050404@nhcc.net> On 2015-07-19 3:45 PM, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: > P - P - 1S - P > 2D - P - P - ? > a player N/VUL against VUL balanced with 2H holding > > Jx > KTxxx > xxx > Qxx > > Opponents then reached 4S, as 2D was Drury (not alerted). > I adjusted to 2D+1. Seems normal, assuming that's the expected result in 2D. I can't imagine the player balancing if told 2D was Drury. > The decision was not appealed, but the AC chairman privately voiced the > opinion that 2H was "outrageous, gambling" and would have invoked 12C. Meaning 12C1b presumably. "Wild or gambling" does not contain the qualifier "unrelated to the infraction." > 1. Your opinion? With partner a passed hand, this seems close to the line. If playing very light openings (say 10-12 NT), I might judge it's over. If playing sound openings or even average ones, I'd judge it's not. In general, we ought to have sympathy for the NOS. Even if you do rule WoG, you will still adjust the score of the OS. > 2. If an AC judged some action a Serious Error which would not meet the > criteria of Ton's Commentary (which is part of the Austrian Regulations > and therefore binding), would this be a matter of Law where the AC cannot > overrule the TD (92B3)? I don't think "serious error" is an issue here, and in any case the error if any is certainly related to the infraction. "Wild or gambling" is the relevant question. I'm not sure that's defined officially, but it must mean something like "trying for an unusual score rather than a good score." Here it looks to me as though the bidder had reasonable hope of pushing opponents to 3D-1 or scoring -50 instead of -90, so I wouldn't judge it wild or gambling unless there were special circumstances such as very light openings. Judging SEWoG is a normal bridge judgment, certainly within the authority of an AC. The criteria for judging are a matter of law, but how a particular action fits those criteria is judgment. From Ziffbridge at t-online.de Sun Jul 19 23:14:17 2015 From: Ziffbridge at t-online.de (Matthias Berghaus) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 23:14:17 +0200 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55AC1329.7060606@t-online.de> Am 19.07.2015 um 21:45 schrieb Petrus Schuster OSB: > Yesterday, after > > P - P - 1S - P > 2D - P - P - ? > > a player N/VUL against VUL balanced with 2H holding > > Jx > KTxxx > xxx > Qxx > > Opponents then reached 4S, as 2D was Drury (not alerted). > I adjusted to 2D+1. > The decision was not appealed, but the AC chairman privately voiced the > opinion that 2H was "outrageous, gambling" and would have invoked 12C. > > 1. Your opinion? Depends on partner`s style, but with most of mine opps are guaranteed to have 23 HCP _at least_, and possibly more. Dangerous.... So this could be termed gambling. Borderline, for sure. > 2. If an AC judged some action a Serious Error which would not meet the > criteria of Ton's Commentary (which is part of the Austrian Regulations > and therefore binding), would this be a matter of Law where the AC cannot > overrule the TD (92B3)? I think so, yes, but as a TD I would not insist on my point of view. Discuss and debate, yes, but if they stick to their guns it is quite likely that I would go with their views. But since it needs an interpretation of the law, the TD has (at least in theory) the final word. Best regards Matthias > > Regards, > Petrus > From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 20 00:43:22 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:43:22 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinion In-Reply-To: References: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> Message-ID: <002601d0c274$52074f30$f615ed90$@online.no> > Petrus Schuster OSB > Sendt: 19. juli 2015 21:32 > Til: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Emne: Re: [BLML] your opinion > > On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 18:27:24 +0200, Jeff Easterson > > wrote: > > > As TD you are called to a table. The players are average club > > players, in fact that is a generous estimate of their ability. > > > > The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the > > hand has been completed. A defender has revoked, that is established > > (all at the table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer > > had lost 3 tricks. The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick > > but his side won 2 tricks afterwards. A simple case you assume, one > > trick shifted to the declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract > > exactly fulfilled. But, of course you ask the declarer if he could > > win more than 9 tricks if the revoke had not been made. He says that he > could > > win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether. He demonstrates how he'd do > > this and it is convincing. So (again a simple case) you decide to > > give him 10 tricks. But now the defenders speak up and say that he > > could win all of the rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the > hand. > > This is shown to be true as well. > > > > What now? How do you decide? Has the defender been so upset by the > > revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks? And thus you give > > him > > 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win > > the rest? Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus > > only > > 9 tricks? > > > > IMO, these are two seperate cases: > > 1. The revoke which has cost declarer two tricks. > 2. A misplay by declarer. > > So, it is 3H+1 for both sides (64C). > Then, you decide whether declarer has committed a Serious Error (12C) in > the subsequent play (which, going by Ton's Commentary, would be very > rare indeed). If so, he is only entitled to 9 tricks, with defenders still > getting 3H+1. > > Regards, > Petrus [Sven Pran] Me think that you have completely misunderstood OP - sorry From grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu Mon Jul 20 04:16:12 2015 From: grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu (David Grabiner) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:16:12 -0400 Subject: [BLML] your opinion In-Reply-To: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> References: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20C8F5BC2ACE430E90AF954F70BFB85A@erdos> "Jeff Easterson" writes: > As TD you are called to a table. The players are average club players, > in fact that is a generous estimate of their ability. > > The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the > hand has been completed. A defender has revoked, that is established > (all at the table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer had > lost 3 tricks. The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick but > his side won 2 tricks afterwards. A simple case you assume, one trick > shifted to the declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract exactly > fulfilled. But, of course you ask the declarer if he could win more > than 9 tricks if the revoke had not been made. He says that he could > win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether. He demonstrates how he'd do > this and it is convincing. So (again a simple case) you decide to give > him 10 tricks. But now the defenders speak up and say that he could win > all of the rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the hand. > This is shown to be true as well. > > What now? How do you decide? Has the defender been so upset by the > revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks? And thus you give him > 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win the > rest? Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only > 9 tricks? I would use the standard for assigning adjusted scores. If it was likely that declarer would have taken 10 tricks without the revoke, and the failure to take 10 tricks after the revoke was not a serious error (given that, after a revoke, a player cannot be expected to count the hand properly), then adjust to 10 tricks for the declarer. If it was at all probable that declarer would have taken 10 tricks, then adjust to 10 tricks for the defenders (the offenders do not benefit from a subsequent serious error by the non-offenders). From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 20 12:03:11 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:03:11 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?serious_error=3F?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Le 19.07.2015 21:45, Petrus Schuster OSB a ?crit?: > Yesterday, after > > P - P - 1S - P > 2D - P - P - ? > > a player N/VUL against VUL balanced with 2H holding > > Jx > KTxxx > xxx > Qxx > > Opponents then reached 4S, as 2D was Drury (not alerted). > I adjusted to 2D+1. > The decision was not appealed, but the AC chairman privately voiced the > opinion that 2H was "outrageous, gambling" and would have invoked 12C. > > 1. Your opinion? The format of competition should be taken into account. At pairs, it might be useful to balance. Do not let them play at the 2-level. At IMPs it is strange. It might also depend on style. I'm known for passing balanced 12-counts, whence reopening would make more sense facing me. But the mere fact that the answer is "it depends" means that this action can't be said "outrageous". Inferior, perhaps, but that's not the point here. The word "gambling" makes me uneasy. Most preempts, overcalls and reopenings are in a way gambles. Gambling that they won't be able to double you and that if you push them to another level it will be good for you. So, gambling bids are part of the game, and telling a player that he won't get redress because his bid had an element of risk sounds wrong. Best regards Alain > 2. If an AC judged some action a Serious Error which would not meet the > criteria of Ton's Commentary (which is part of the Austrian Regulations > and therefore binding), would this be a matter of Law where the AC > cannot > overrule the TD (92B3)? > > Regards, > Petrus -- A. From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 20 12:13:32 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:13:32 +0200 Subject: [BLML] your opinion In-Reply-To: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> References: <55ABCFEC.80406@gmx.de> Message-ID: <6a9bef69553b80ab02ebbfb1f8efa490@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 19.07.2015 18:27, Jeff Easterson a ?crit?: > As TD you are called to a table. The players are average club players, > in fact that is a generous estimate of their ability. > > The declarer is playing 3 hearts. When you are called to the table the > hand has been completed. A defender has revoked, that is established > (all at the table agree) and at the time of the revoke the declarer had > lost 3 tricks. The revoking defender did not win the revoke trick but > his side won 2 tricks afterwards. A simple case you assume, one trick > shifted to the declarer so 9 instead of 8 tricks, contract exactly > fulfilled. But, of course you ask the declarer if he could win more > than 9 tricks if the revoke had not been made. He says that he could > win all of the tricks, thus 10 altogether. He demonstrates how he'd > do > this and it is convincing. So (again a simple case) you decide to give > him 10 tricks. But now the defenders speak up and say that he could > win > all of the rest of the tricks after the revoke but misplayed the hand. > This is shown to be true as well. > > What now? How do you decide? Has the defender been so upset by the > revoke that he didn't win the rest of the tricks? And thus you give > him > 10 tricks? Does it depend on how obvious the line of play is to win > the > rest? Do you decide that his play of the hand is binding and thus only > 9 tricks? > > Interesting. Does the fact that declarer misplayed after the revoke gave him a wrong distributional information mean that he would also have misplayed had he been given the right distributional information ? In most cases, you can't pretend that, so you'll have to award him 10 tricks. There is such a thing as the benefit of doubt to the NOS. The way the story is told, the fact that declarer told you how he would have made 10 tricks, he had a line of play in mind for 10 tricks if some suit had been dealt in some way, and when the revoke made it look it hadn't he had to try for something else and couldn't cope. But without the revoke he knew what to do. 10 tricks. Best regards Alain From g3 at nige1.com Mon Jul 20 15:15:57 2015 From: g3 at nige1.com (Nigel Guthrie) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 14:15:57 +0100 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> [Alain] The word "gambling" makes me uneasy. Most preempts, overcalls and reopenings are in a way gambles. Gambling that they won't be able to double you and that if you push them to another level it will be good for you. So, gambling bids are part of the game, and telling a player that he won't get redress because his bid had an element of risk sounds wrong. [Nigel] The laws are unnecessarily subjective, sophisticated, complex, and hard to understand. SEWOG rules are spurious, result in contentious rulings and add no discernable value. When current trends reverse and law-makers decide to simplify rules, rendering more of them accessible to ordinary players, this is among those that should be expunged. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 15:45:29 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 23:45:29 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives Message-ID: Nigel Guthrie: [snip] The law-book should define "class of player" to be "fairly typical of players in this field". Any other criterion places players like Helgemo above the law. Law-makers should strive to rely on a director's subjective judgement, as little as possible. Richard Hills: In my opinion Nigel Guthrie has it backwards. "Class of player" disadvantages Geir Helgemo vis-a-vis an average player whenever Helgemo's partner provides UI. This is because the expert Helgemo can conceive of more LAs than the average player can (indeed, much of the time an average player can conceive only one LA). Since the whole point of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of skill and judgement, equity demands that some rulings necessarily involve a Director's skill and judgement. Best wishes, Richard Hills On Sunday, July 19, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > > [Herman] > Well, seeing as the laws define LA for "class of player", there is no > alternative, whether you like it or not. > [Nigel] > IMO 1 in a sample of 6 is statistically significant if you are establishing > whether a player might have taken an action. Anyway, realistically, a poll > is one of the few available tests with any semblance of objectivity. I > agree with Jerry Fusselman that the law-book should define "class of > player" > to be "fairly typical of players in this field". Any other criterion > places > players like Helgemo above the law. Law-makers should strive to rely on a > director's subjective judgement, as little as possible. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150720/d74f34e6/attachment.html From wjburrows at gmail.com Mon Jul 20 23:54:49 2015 From: wjburrows at gmail.com (Wayne Burrows) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 09:54:49 +1200 Subject: [BLML] Fwd: Seattle NABC+ Case 16: Bridge logic and logical alternatives In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 July 2015 at 01:45, Richard Hills wrote: > Nigel Guthrie: > > [snip] > > The law-book should define "class of player" to be "fairly typical of > players in this field". Any other criterion places players like Helgemo > above the law. Law-makers should strive to rely on a director's > subjective judgement, as little as possible. > > Richard Hills: > > In my opinion Nigel Guthrie has it backwards. "Class of player" > disadvantages Geir Helgemo vis-a-vis an average player whenever Helgemo's > partner provides UI. This is because the expert Helgemo can conceive of > more LAs than the average player can (indeed, much of the time an average > player can conceive only one LA). > Agree and disagree. Maybe the average player can conceive of only one LA but they often have more when the situation is looked at objectively from a 'class of players' perspective. One average player might look and think I had only 10 points I can't bid. Another I had five spades so I must bid them. Yet another I was nearly the maximum for my passed hand so I should double to tell my partner that. Each player only conceives of one LA but the class of player has multiple LAs. I think it is indeed multiple because on another day it maybe player 2 that passes and player 3 that bids 2S etc. I have independently been thinking about this issue of the definition of logical alternatives for sometime now. A player with 10 hcp and five spades backed in to the auction after P 2H P* P; ? There had been a hesitation and the director ruled in favour of the 2S bidder's action. She claimed that 8/9 said they would bid. I conducted an online poll in another forum and over half with the hand presented said they would seriously consider pass. I had already conceived of this possibility and I conducted the poll in tandom with another hand that occurred on the same day with a player of a similar if not identical "class". On that hand the auction against us had gone P 1NT P P; ? and the player with 10 hcp and five hearts and five clubs and at favourable vulnerability passed us out. These seemed similar situations to me for the class of player. A week or two later at the club on the senior night the bidding proceeded 3S P P ? And in pass out seat the player held 0=5=3=5 with a 14 count including three bullets and two jacks. I conducted a poll on this hand and none out of many - I haven't looked the details up as I write this - seriously considered pass. Yet at the table I was indeed passed out in 3S. If the action that a player does in fact take is considered a logical alternative then surely then it is necessary to consider an action that a player would take in a given situation is a logical alternative. That is, if pass is a logical alternative for this player when 3S is passed around to them, that should be independent of whether or not there has been a hesitation from partner on the way. Yet here if there had been a hesitation and a poll the whole world would have taken some action and yet for this player without the hesitation pass was indeed a LA. The judgments and procedures and laws and regulations in determining what is a logical alternative are seriously flawed in these matters to the extent that there is no logic or consistency to what actions are or are not considered logical alternatives. In particular for a weaker player very many bad actions even ones not conceived by Helgemo and his peers whoever they may be are in fact LAs for the weaker player. I have evidence that a weak player might pass out 3S with a shapely 14 but if there partner prompts them that they have values and passes then such a player is perhaps unlikely to pass and even less likely to have been considered to have taken advantage of the UI but that is indeed what has happened. > > Since the whole point of Duplicate Bridge is that it is a game of skill > and judgement, equity demands that some rulings necessarily involve a > Director's skill and judgement. > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Sunday, July 19, 2015, Nigel Guthrie wrote: > >> >> [Herman] >> Well, seeing as the laws define LA for "class of player", there is no >> alternative, whether you like it or not. >> [Nigel] >> IMO 1 in a sample of 6 is statistically significant if you are >> establishing >> whether a player might have taken an action. Anyway, realistically, a >> poll >> is one of the few available tests with any semblance of objectivity. I >> agree with Jerry Fusselman that the law-book should define "class of >> player" >> to be "fairly typical of players in this field". Any other criterion >> places >> players like Helgemo above the law. Law-makers should strive to rely on a >> director's subjective judgement, as little as possible. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Ng? mihi Wayne Burrows Te Papaioea Aotearoa Palmerston North New Zealand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20150720/f3160365/attachment-0001.html From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 21 03:52:56 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:52:56 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55ADA5F8.40205@nhcc.net> On 2015-07-20 6:03 AM, agot wrote: > The word "gambling" makes me uneasy. Most preempts, overcalls and > reopenings are in a way gambles. I'd say pretty much every action short of a "sure tricks" declarer play has a gambling element. After all, even if have a scientific auction to find all the relevant cards and bid a superb slam, on a bad day trumps might break 5-0 and beat us. Yet no one would call that "gambling." > gambling bids are part of the game Indeed. I don't think anyone construes the rule as "any element of gamble whatsoever." That would include practically everything. Both context and precedent suggest "gambling" is something much rarer than the ordinary risks that accompany virtually all actions. I am surprised to see that the EBU White Book doesn't discuss "wild or gambling," though it does discuss "serious error." The more I think about it, the more I like the standard I suggested earlier. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 22 11:18:41 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:18:41 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?serious_error=3F?= In-Reply-To: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> Message-ID: <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 20.07.2015 15:15, Nigel Guthrie a ?crit?: > [Alain] > The word "gambling" makes me uneasy. Most preempts, overcalls and > reopenings are in a way gambles. Gambling that they won't be able to > double you and that if you push them to another level it will be good > for you. So, gambling bids are part of the game, and telling a player > that he won't get redress because his bid had an element of risk sounds > wrong. > > [Nigel] > The laws are unnecessarily subjective, sophisticated, complex, and hard > to > understand. SEWOG rules are spurious, result in contentious rulings and > add > no discernable value. When current trends reverse and law-makers > decide to > simplify rules, rendering more of them accessible to ordinary players, > this > is among those that should be expunged. Ons might imagine a LA-type criterion, according to which an action (usually a bid) after an infraction would be considered "non-wild" if some of the peers of the player would at least consider it. So, making a NV jump overcall on a so-so 5-card suit would obviously be "gambling" (but this would be tolerated), but not "wild", if you polled me and some of my partners. Best regards Alain From swillner at nhcc.net Wed Jul 22 15:14:28 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:14:28 -0400 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> On 2015-07-22 5:18 AM, agot wrote: > Ons might imagine a LA-type criterion, according to which an action > (usually a bid) after an infraction would be considered "non-wild" > if some of the peers of the player would at least consider it. This looks reasonable. I just wish there were official guidance. > So, making a NV jump overcall on a so-so 5-card suit would obviously > be "gambling" (but this would be tolerated), but not "wild", if you > polled me and some of my partners. In some of my partnerships, jump overcalls on 5c suits are routine. It's "gambling" in Alain's loose sense, but I don't see why we should be denied redress if there turns out to have been a prior infraction. In other partnerships, such jump overcalls would be unthinkable, and "wild or gambling" would be the proper ruling. This points up the difficulty. From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 23 16:52:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 16:52:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] =?utf-8?q?serious_error=3F?= In-Reply-To: <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> Message-ID: <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 22.07.2015 15:14, Steve Willner a ?crit?: > On 2015-07-22 5:18 AM, agot wrote: >> Ons might imagine a LA-type criterion, according to which an action >> (usually a bid) after an infraction would be considered "non-wild" >> if some of the peers of the player would at least consider it. > > This looks reasonable. I just wish there were official guidance. > >> So, making a NV jump overcall on a so-so 5-card suit would obviously >> be "gambling" (but this would be tolerated), but not "wild", if you >> polled me and some of my partners. > > In some of my partnerships, jump overcalls on 5c suits are routine. > It's "gambling" in Alain's loose sense, but I don't see why we should > be > denied redress if there turns out to have been a prior infraction. In > other partnerships, such jump overcalls would be unthinkable, and "wild > or gambling" would be the proper ruling. This points up the > difficulty. > You raise an important point. "The player's peers" is usually understood as "players with similar level and experience", but should it include "having a similar style" ? In this case, count me with the ayes. But how would one consider a statement that "our style is to bid thin games, so passing isn't a LA for us" ? From gordonr60 at gmail.com Thu Jul 23 18:07:25 2015 From: gordonr60 at gmail.com (Gordon Rainsford) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 17:07:25 +0100 Subject: [BLML] serious error? In-Reply-To: <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> Robin Barker and I use the "shudder test": if when you recount the auction/play to someone else they physically recoil at the action taken, it's a good candidate for being considered SEWoG. On 23/07/2015 15:52, agot wrote: > Le 22.07.2015 15:14, Steve Willner a ?crit : >> On 2015-07-22 5:18 AM, agot wrote: >>> Ons might imagine a LA-type criterion, according to which an action >>> (usually a bid) after an infraction would be considered "non-wild" >>> if some of the peers of the player would at least consider it. >> This looks reasonable. I just wish there were official guidance. >> >>> So, making a NV jump overcall on a so-so 5-card suit would obviously >>> be "gambling" (but this would be tolerated), but not "wild", if you >>> polled me and some of my partners. >> In some of my partnerships, jump overcalls on 5c suits are routine. >> It's "gambling" in Alain's loose sense, but I don't see why we should >> be >> denied redress if there turns out to have been a prior infraction. In >> other partnerships, such jump overcalls would be unthinkable, and "wild >> or gambling" would be the proper ruling. This points up the >> difficulty. >> > You raise an important point. "The player's peers" is usually understood > as "players with similar level and experience", but should it include > "having a similar style" ? > In this case, count me with the ayes. But how would one consider a > statement that "our style is to bid thin games, so passing isn't a LA > for us" ? > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From agot at ulb.ac.be Mon Jul 27 14:37:47 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:37:47 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: Dear blmlists, I would appreciate your opinion about a point which I didn't see covered by jurisprudence. It has been said more than once that, in answering quesitons about a bid, one should not answer to the letter of the question, but rather give every useful item of information, including inferences. Now, what about subsidiary questions ? Does one need to answer beyond the question ? Example : N E S W 1C 1S Dbl p 2H 3D 4H p p p At the start of play, declarer asks West "do you have any 55 conventions ?" This might indeed be relevant to his line of play, as there might be inferences about East's hand. Scenario 1 : EW do indeed play, say, 2C as a D-S two-suiter, but the bid is either light or very strong (a popular treatment). This would void any inferences, as East's strength probably lies in-between. Is West asked to draw North's attention to this fact, or should North have asked more precisely ? Scenario 2 : EW do indeed play some two-suited overcalls, but not with a S-D two-suiter (they play 2C for majors, and 2NT for H and D, another treatment which does exist in my country). Now, answering to the positive seems to be to be playing on words, as one very clearly sees that North is interested on what was available with S and D. So, how should one answer ? Of course, here, it is fairly easy to understand what the question is about, and therefore to answer as precisely as possible, but there are more marginal cases. Say the bidding has started 1C 1H 2D, and later the overcaller's side asks "do you play negative doubles of 1H ?" How can opponents guess whether the purpose of the question is : - to determine whether responder could hold 4 spades and, in this case, in which range ; - to determine whether 2D could have been on the light side (which is the case if a double guarantees 4 spades, but not if it denies them, as one could have doubled) ; - to determine whether 2D could have been relatively short (which is the case absent a negative double). If one has to say everything about the negative double, it might take some minutes. And of course, there is always that problem about specific questions transmitting UI. So, where does one draw the limit to the necessity of guessing the inquirer's motives ? Perhaps it should depend on the inquiree's level of expertise ? Has anything been said about this ? Thank you for your advice. Alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Mon Jul 27 16:11:25 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 00:11:25 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: Key sentence from the Australian Bridge Federation regulations: "The principle is to disclose, not as little as you must, but as much as you can, and as comprehensibly as you can." Best wishes, Richard Hills On Monday, July 27, 2015, agot wrote: > > Dear blmlists, > > I would appreciate your opinion about a point which I didn't see covered > by jurisprudence. > > It has been said more than once that, in answering quesitons about a > bid, one should not answer to the letter of the question, but rather > give every useful item of information, including inferences. > > Now, what about subsidiary questions ? Does one need to answer beyond > the question ? > > Example : > > N E S W > > 1C 1S Dbl p > 2H 3D 4H p > p p > > At the start of play, declarer asks West "do you have any 55 conventions > ?" > This might indeed be relevant to his line of play, as there might be > inferences about East's hand. > > Scenario 1 : EW do indeed play, say, 2C as a D-S two-suiter, but the bid > is either light or very strong (a popular treatment). This would void > any inferences, as East's strength probably lies in-between. Is West > asked to draw North's attention to this fact, or should North have asked > more precisely ? > > Scenario 2 : EW do indeed play some two-suited overcalls, but not with a > S-D two-suiter (they play 2C for majors, and 2NT for H and D, another > treatment which does exist in my country). Now, answering to the > positive seems to be to be playing on words, as one very clearly sees > that North is interested on what was available with S and D. So, how > should one answer ? > > Of course, here, it is fairly easy to understand what the question is > about, and therefore to answer as precisely as possible, but there are > more marginal cases. > Say the bidding has started 1C 1H 2D, and later the overcaller's side > asks "do you play negative doubles of 1H ?" > How can opponents guess whether the purpose of the question is : > - to determine whether responder could hold 4 spades and, in this case, > in which range ; > - to determine whether 2D could have been on the light side (which is > the case if a double guarantees 4 spades, but not if it denies them, as > one could have doubled) ; > - to determine whether 2D could have been relatively short (which is the > case absent a negative double). > > If one has to say everything about the negative double, it might take > some minutes. > And of course, there is always that problem about specific questions > transmitting UI. > > So, where does one draw the limit to the necessity of guessing the > inquirer's motives ? Perhaps it should depend on the inquiree's level of > expertise ? Has anything been said about this ? > > Thank you for your advice. > > > Alain > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150727/864dd6a3/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Mon Jul 27 16:40:21 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:40:21 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> > agot > Sendt: 27. juli 2015 14:38 > Til: blml at rtflb.org > Emne: [BLML] Answering about details > > > Dear blmlists, > > I would appreciate your opinion about a point which I didn't see covered > by jurisprudence. > > It has been said more than once that, in answering quesitons about a bid, > one should not answer to the letter of the question, but rather give every > useful item of information, including inferences. > > Now, what about subsidiary questions ? Does one need to answer beyond > the question ? > > Example : > > N E S W > > 1C 1S Dbl p > 2H 3D 4H p > p p > > At the start of play, declarer asks West "do you have any 55 conventions ?" > This might indeed be relevant to his line of play, as there might be > inferences about East's hand. > > Scenario 1 : EW do indeed play, say, 2C as a D-S two-suiter, but the bid is > either light or very strong (a popular treatment). This would void any > inferences, as East's strength probably lies in-between. Is West asked to > draw North's attention to this fact, or should North have asked more > precisely ? > > Scenario 2 : EW do indeed play some two-suited overcalls, but not with a S- > D two-suiter (they play 2C for majors, and 2NT for H and D, another > treatment which does exist in my country). Now, answering to the positive > seems to be to be playing on words, as one very clearly sees that North is > interested on what was available with S and D. So, how should one answer > ? > > Of course, here, it is fairly easy to understand what the question is about, > and therefore to answer as precisely as possible, but there are more > marginal cases. > Say the bidding has started 1C 1H 2D, and later the overcaller's side > asks "do you play negative doubles of 1H ?" > How can opponents guess whether the purpose of the question is : > - to determine whether responder could hold 4 spades and, in this case, in > which range ; > - to determine whether 2D could have been on the light side (which is the > case if a double guarantees 4 spades, but not if it denies them, as one could > have doubled) ; > - to determine whether 2D could have been relatively short (which is the > case absent a negative double). > > If one has to say everything about the negative double, it might take some > minutes. > And of course, there is always that problem about specific questions > transmitting UI. > > So, where does one draw the limit to the necessity of guessing the > inquirer's motives ? Perhaps it should depend on the inquiree's level of > expertise ? Has anything been said about this ? > > Thank you for your advice. > > > Alain [Sven Pran] Honestly I find declarer's question ("do you have any 55 conventions ?") at this time improper. The question would be quite OK before the auction, but at this time he may just ask (L20F) for: "an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where these are matters of partnership understanding." but the above question does not meet any of these criteria. I shall consider a plain "yes" or "no" as a perfect and complete answer to (leading) questions like the one above. As to your last example: Say the bidding has started 1C 1H 2D, and later the overcaller's side asks "do you play negative doubles of 1H ?". This question is perfectly OK (at the inquirer's turn to call) because it concerns an available call not made (the negative double instead of 2D). The inquirer's motives are none of the responders' business and if they draw any inference from the questions they do so at their own risk. (However, the questions asked and the possible motives for asking the questions are of course UI to the inquirer's partner.) From swillner at nhcc.net Tue Jul 28 03:07:50 2015 From: swillner at nhcc.net (Steve Willner) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 21:07:50 -0400 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <55B6D5E6.8050004@nhcc.net> On 2015-07-27 8:37 AM, agot wrote: > It has been said more than once that, in answering quesitons about a > bid, one should not answer to the letter of the question, but rather > give every useful item of information, including inferences. The ACBL has a regulation to this effect. L20F and 40B6a apply in any jurisdiction. > Now, what about subsidiary questions ? Does one need to answer beyond > the question ? In principle, the first answer should have been complete, so there should be no need for subsidiary questions. In real life, nobody answers perfectly every time, though we should all aspire to do so. If a subsidiary question is asked, it may remind us that our first answer was incomplete, and we should remedy that forthwith. Alternatively, it may be an improper question (e.g., the dreaded "informatory question"), and we may need to call the Director. > At the start of play, declarer asks West "do you have any 55 conventions?" Obviously deserves an answer in any jurisdiction: "relevant alternative calls available that were not made" is in L20F. If there are no such calls, then explainer should say so. Guessing inquirer's motives is irrelevant unless one has reason to suspect a L20G1 ("pro question") or or 73B1 ("informatory question") violation. L20F2 allows asking at one's own turn to play (and for declarer at dummy's turn) throughout the play period and specifies that the same sort of answer (exact quote is "on a like basis") should be given regardless of when the question is asked. I write "same sort" rather than "same" because information from the play may make part of an answer irrelevant or rule out some _a priori_ possibilities. I am astounded that any of this could be in doubt, though I recognize that there are some players unfamiliar (to be generous) with their obligations. From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 10:41:12 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:41:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> Message-ID: <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: Sven Pran schreef: > [Sven Pran] > Honestly I find declarer's question ("do you have any 55 conventions ?") at > this time improper. > > The question would be quite OK before the auction, but at this time he may > just ask (L20F) for: > "an explanation of the opponents' prior auction. He is entitled to know > about calls actually made, about relevant alternative calls available that > were not made, and about relevant inferences from the choice of action where > these are matters of partnership understanding." > but the above question does not meet any of these criteria. > > I shall consider a plain "yes" or "no" as a perfect and complete answer to > (leading) questions like the one above. > So you would rather have declarer ask: "what would 3Cl have meant, and 3Di, and 2NT, and 2Sp?" ust to find out what he wants to know? All those questions would be legal, in your narrow point of view. Far better to ask the way Alain suggested. Answering "yes" or "no" is simply not enough. As for "leading question": leading whom? dummy? > As to your last example: Say the bidding has started 1C 1H 2D, and later > the overcaller's side asks "do you play negative doubles of 1H ?". > This question is perfectly OK (at the inquirer's turn to call) because it > concerns an available call not made (the negative double instead of 2D). > legalistic point of view. I have never seen L20E as a limited list, rather as a guideline to state that all these (and more) are permitted. > The inquirer's motives are none of the responders' business and if they draw > any inference from the questions they do so at their own risk. (However, the > questions asked and the possible motives for asking the questions are of > course UI to the inquirer's partner.) > Which is, in this case, dummy. Herman. From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 28 12:08:38 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 12:08:38 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: [Sven Pran] Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been something like: "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant information on showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. There is a difference between what information you may request before an auction (Law 40A1) and during an auction or play (Law 20F). From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 14:39:37 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 14:39:37 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> Message-ID: <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> Sven Pran schreef: >> Herman De Wael >> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: > > [Sven Pran] > Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been something > like: > "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" > Which is not what the declarer wants to know. The question is really "could he still have?" (neither shown nor denied); "and in which circumstances" (if he still has a fifth spade/diamond, then his range is ...) If the range is meanwhile clear from the play, declarer can then eliminate the 5-5 from consideration. And so on. Really, the best way to ask this is "do you have methods for two-suiters?". > And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant information on > showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. > That is true, but no-one ever does this. "1Sp shows 5 Sp"; no-one ever states "and denies 7 hearts". Full explanations are never given. That's why follow-up questions are available. > There is a difference between what information you may request before an > auction (Law 40A1) and during an auction or play (Law 20F). > So you believe that once the first call has started, you are no longer allowed to ask the question "do you have methods for 5-5s?". Strange. But, as I said, this one was known to blml before. There are those who see the list in L20F as limiting, while I (and many with me) prefer to see it as an illustration that you can basically ask anything. All you need to do is to see the evolution of this law. Throughout the ages, the law has been enlarged to counter those that believe it is limiting. It never was, and still isn't. Herman. From hildalirsch at gmail.com Tue Jul 28 16:36:09 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 00:36:09 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: Herman De Wael asserted that due to Law 20F: "you can basically ask anything." But a central criterion of Law 20F1 is "relevant alternative calls available". In 2008 the WBF Laws Committee gave this indicative example of what was not an "alternative call": "(An 'alternative' call is not the same call with another meaning - for example, if the reply to an opponent is that '5D shows diamonds preference', any reply to a further question 'what would it mean if 4NT were Blackwood?' is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law 20F1.)" Best wishes, Richard Hills On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Herman De Wael wrote: > Sven Pran schreef: > >> Herman De Wael > >> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been something > > like: > > "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" > > > > Which is not what the declarer wants to know. The question is really > "could he still have?" (neither shown nor denied); "and in which > circumstances" (if he still has a fifth spade/diamond, then his range is > ...) If the range is meanwhile clear from the play, declarer can then > eliminate the 5-5 from consideration. And so on. Really, the best way to > ask this is "do you have methods for two-suiters?". > > > And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant > information on > > showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. > > > > That is true, but no-one ever does this. "1Sp shows 5 Sp"; no-one ever > states "and denies 7 hearts". Full explanations are never given. That's > why follow-up questions are available. > > > There is a difference between what information you may request before an > > auction (Law 40A1) and during an auction or play (Law 20F). > > > > So you believe that once the first call has started, you are no longer > allowed to ask the question "do you have methods for 5-5s?". Strange. > > But, as I said, this one was known to blml before. There are those who > see the list in L20F as limiting, while I (and many with me) prefer to > see it as an illustration that you can basically ask anything. > All you need to do is to see the evolution of this law. Throughout the > ages, the law has been enlarged to counter those that believe it is > limiting. It never was, and still isn't. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150728/503a81b5/attachment.html From svenpran at online.no Tue Jul 28 17:06:12 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:06:12 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <000901d0c946$f1814920$d483db60$@online.no> > Herman De Wael > Sven Pran schreef: > >> Herman De Wael > >> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been > > something > > like: > > "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" > > > > Which is not what the declarer wants to know. The question is really "could > he still have?" (neither shown nor denied); "and in which circumstances" (if > he still has a fifth spade/diamond, then his range is > ...) If the range is meanwhile clear from the play, declarer can then > eliminate the 5-5 from consideration. And so on. Really, the best way to ask > this is "do you have methods for two-suiters?". [Sven Pran] Well, I do not think this is a valid reasoning. I have had agreements where a particular bid showed 5-5, but this didn't imply that not using that bid denied 5-5, only that I found a different call more appropriate in the particular situation (for instance a guess that the information of a two-suiter would probably be of greater value to my opponents than to my partner). In such a situation my correct response to your suggested questions would certainly be that "yes, we have agreements to show 5-5, and also "yes, he could still have 5-5". > > > And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant > > information on showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. > > > > That is true, but no-one ever does this. "1Sp shows 5 Sp"; no-one ever > states "and denies 7 hearts". Full explanations are never given. That's why > follow-up questions are available. > > > There is a difference between what information you may request before > > an auction (Law 40A1) and during an auction or play (Law 20F). > > > > So you believe that once the first call has started, you are no longer > allowed to ask the question "do you have methods for 5-5s?". Strange. > > But, as I said, this one was known to blml before. There are those who see > the list in L20F as limiting, while I (and many with me) prefer to see it as an > illustration that you can basically ask anything. > All you need to do is to see the evolution of this law. Throughout the ages, > the law has been enlarged to counter those that believe it is limiting. It > never was, and still isn't. [Sven Pran] Believe me, I fully share your opinion on players using technicalities to avoid giving opponents all the information they are entitled to, and I certainly do not consider Law 20F to limit the amount of information to be revealed. But I think that questions during the auction (or play) should be limited to what is relevant in that particular auction and understand tle list in Law 20F1 to indicate just that. And a limiting question apparently requesting a "yes" or "no" answer is itself dangerous for the inquirer because it implies limiting the answer to either of these two words. I frequently favour a question when opponents have completed a rather complex auction like: "What are we entitled to know from this auction?" > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > Blml mailing list > Blml at rtflb.org > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml From hermandw at skynet.be Tue Jul 28 17:06:40 2015 From: hermandw at skynet.be (Herman De Wael) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 17:06:40 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <55B79A80.2000403@skynet.be> two answers: first: I said "basically". If you want to exclude the hypothetical as stated below, then please do so. second: we all know that I don't agree with the WBFLC in this instance. I believe it was an attempt to get our of a corner, in which no one believed they were. Herman. Richard Hills schreef: > Herman De Wael asserted that due to Law 20F: > > "you can basically ask anything." > > But a central criterion of Law 20F1 is "relevant alternative calls > available". In 2008 the WBF Laws Committee gave this indicative example > of what was not an "alternative call": > > "(An 'alternative' call is not the same call with another meaning - for > example, if the reply to an opponent is that '5D shows diamonds > preference', any reply to a further question 'what would it mean if 4NT > were Blackwood?' is given voluntarily and not as a requirement of Law > 20F1.)" > > Best wishes, > > Richard Hills > > On Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > Sven Pran schreef: > >> Herman De Wael > >> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: > > > > [Sven Pran] > > Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been > something > > like: > > "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" > > > > Which is not what the declarer wants to know. The question is really > "could he still have?" (neither shown nor denied); "and in which > circumstances" (if he still has a fifth spade/diamond, then his range is > ...) If the range is meanwhile clear from the play, declarer can then > eliminate the 5-5 from consideration. And so on. Really, the best way to > ask this is "do you have methods for two-suiters?". > > > And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant > information on > > showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. > > > > That is true, but no-one ever does this. "1Sp shows 5 Sp"; no-one ever > states "and denies 7 hearts". Full explanations are never given. That's > why follow-up questions are available. > > > There is a difference between what information you may request > before an > > auction (Law 40A1) and during an auction or play (Law 20F). > > > > So you believe that once the first call has started, you are no longer > allowed to ask the question "do you have methods for 5-5s?". Strange. > > But, as I said, this one was known to blml before. There are those who > see the list in L20F as limiting, while I (and many with me) prefer to > see it as an illustration that you can basically ask anything. > All you need to do is to see the evolution of this law. Throughout the > ages, the law has been enlarged to counter those that believe it is > limiting. It never was, and still isn't. > > Herman. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 13:34:50 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:34:50 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\\\" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no>" <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be>" <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no> Message-ID: <7a5185c22ac24e41303163fdbc0705e6@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 28.07.2015 12:08, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> Herman De Wael >> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: > > [Sven Pran] > Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been > something > like: > "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" AG : same problem, because there might be infrences about range, from the failure to use a conventional overcall, whence a Y/N answer would hide somtehing. The case was but an example, of course. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 13:41:39 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:41:39 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\\\" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be>" <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no>" <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be> Message-ID: <1a81cd58791490179ee7b552a56f155c@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 28.07.2015 14:39, Herman De Wael a ?crit?: > Sven Pran schreef: >>> Herman De Wael >>> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: >> >> [Sven Pran] >> Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been >> something >> like: >> "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" >> > > Which is not what the declarer wants to know. The question is really > "could he still have?" (neither shown nor denied); "and in which > circumstances" (if he still has a fifth spade/diamond, then his range > is > ...) If the range is meanwhile clear from the play, declarer can then > eliminate the 5-5 from consideration. And so on. Really, the best way > to > ask this is "do you have methods for two-suiters?". > >> And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant >> information on >> showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. >> > > That is true, but no-one ever does this. "1Sp shows 5 Sp"; no-one ever > states "and denies 7 hearts". Full explanations are never given. That's > why follow-up questions are available. AG : one very classical example of this is when the sequence 1C (1H) 1S is alerted and explained as guaranteeing 5 cards (American style). This is usually what opponents want to know : does the bid show 4+ or 5+ ? But opponents may also be intrested in knowing whether the player had a weak jump response at his disposal, and how could they do so without asking ? Another example : who, in answering that a 5D response over BW shows 1 or 4 keys (or whatever), will add "without any void in an unbid suit" ? Yet it is surely relevant when comes the moment to lead (and that's the best moment to ask, to avoid UI). Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 13:53:08 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:53:08 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <000901d0c946$f1814920$d483db60$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\\\" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no>" <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be>" <000901d0c946$f1814920$d483db60$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 28.07.2015 17:06, Sven Pran a ?crit?: >> Herman De Wael >> Sven Pran schreef: >> >> Herman De Wael >> >> Sorry Sven, you are way off-course here: >> > >> > [Sven Pran] >> > Maybe, but IMHO a correct question in this case would have been >> > something >> > like: >> > "has he shown or denied a 5-5 hand with his calls?" >> > >> >> Which is not what the declarer wants to know. The question is really > "could >> he still have?" (neither shown nor denied); "and in which >> circumstances" > (if >> he still has a fifth spade/diamond, then his range is >> ...) If the range is meanwhile clear from the play, declarer can then >> eliminate the 5-5 from consideration. And so on. Really, the best way >> to > ask >> this is "do you have methods for two-suiters?". > [Sven Pran] > Well, I do not think this is a valid reasoning. > I have had agreements where a particular bid showed 5-5, but this > didn't > imply that not using that bid denied 5-5, only that I found a different > call > more appropriate in the particular situation (for instance a guess that > the > information of a two-suiter would probably be of greater value to my > opponents than to my partner). > In such a situation my correct response to your suggested questions > would > certainly be that "yes, we have agreements to show 5-5, and also "yes, > he > could still have 5-5". > >> >> > And an explanation of the auction should include any relevant >> > information on showing 5--5 without being specifically asked for. >> > >> >> That is true, but no-one ever does this. "1Sp shows 5 Sp"; no-one ever >> states "and denies 7 hearts". Full explanations are never given. >> That's > why >> follow-up questions are available. >> >> > There is a difference between what information you may request before >> > an auction (Law 40A1) and during an auction or play (Law 20F). >> > >> >> So you believe that once the first call has started, you are no longer >> allowed to ask the question "do you have methods for 5-5s?". Strange. >> >> But, as I said, this one was known to blml before. There are those who >> see >> the list in L20F as limiting, while I (and many with me) prefer to see >> it > as an >> illustration that you can basically ask anything. >> All you need to do is to see the evolution of this law. Throughout the > ages, >> the law has been enlarged to counter those that believe it is >> limiting. It >> never was, and still isn't. > [Sven Pran] > Believe me, I fully share your opinion on players using technicalities > to > avoid giving opponents all the information they are entitled to, and I > certainly do not consider Law 20F to limit the amount of information to > be > revealed. But I think that questions during the auction (or play) > should be > limited to what is relevant in that particular auction and understand > tle > list in Law 20F1 to indicate just that. AG : but what is relevant should be left to the asker's appreciation. And there might be some subtle links. Whence legislating about limits might prove to be wrong. What one answers to a negative double holding the worst hand (no suit to bid, no stopper) might be of some relevance on the exact meaning of a weak competitive jump-shift, or at least I'm entitled to believe it might. (how could that be ? Well, if the default answer after 1H (1S) Dbl is a 3-card minor, then a 2C answer might be light, to avoid being endplayed by a 2D bid ; and therefore a 3C bid would be severely limited ; if the default bid was 1NT, then a 2C response can be quite constructive, and a 3C bid has a broader range.) > And a limiting question apparently requesting a "yes" or "no" answer is > itself dangerous for the inquirer because it implies limiting the > answer to > either of these two words. > I frequently favour a question when opponents have completed a rather > complex auction like: "What are we entitled to know from this auction?" Right, but apart from the time consumed, which might be a concern, there is always the possibility that the player will forget one tiny detail, which is precisely what we do want to know. Best regards alain > >> >> Herman. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- A. From svenpran at online.no Wed Jul 29 14:29:19 2015 From: svenpran at online.no (Sven Pran) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:29:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\\\" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no>" <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be>" <000901d0c946$f1814920$d483db60$@online.no> Message-ID: <000701d0c9fa$31636970$942a3c50$@online.no> > agot > > [Sven Pran] > > And a limiting question apparently requesting a "yes" or "no" answer > > is itself dangerous for the inquirer because it implies limiting the > > answer to either of these two words. > > I frequently favour a question when opponents have completed a rather > > complex auction like: "What are we entitled to know from this auction?" > > Right, but apart from the time consumed, which might be a concern, there > is always the possibility that the player will forget one tiny detail, which is > precisely what we do want to know. [Sven Pran] And asking "What are we entitled to know from this auction?" shifts the responsibility of a missing detail which turns up important to the responder. When the question only calls for a "yes" or "no" answer the responsibility (because of an insufficient question) remains with the inquirer. From agot at ulb.ac.be Wed Jul 29 15:11:28 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:11:28 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <000701d0c9fa$31636970$942a3c50$@online.no> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <000c01d0c87a$2b238da0$816aa8e0$@online.no> <55B74028.6070004@skynet.be> <000301d0c91d$6004db70$200e9250$@online.no>\\\" <55B77809.3020703@skynet.be>\\\" <000901d0c946$f1814920$d483db60$@online.no>" " <000701d0c9fa$31636970$942a3c50$@online.no> Message-ID: Le 29.07.2015 14:29, Sven Pran a ?crit?: Le 29.07.2015 14:29, Sven Pran a ?crit : >> agot >> > [Sven Pran] >> > And a limiting question apparently requesting a "yes" or "no" answer >> > is itself dangerous for the inquirer because it implies limiting the >> > answer to either of these two words. >> > I frequently favour a question when opponents have completed a rather >> > complex auction like: "What are we entitled to know from this auction?" >> >> Right, but apart from the time consumed, which might be a concern, >> there >> is always the possibility that the player will forget one tiny detail, >> which is >> precisely what we do want to know. > > [Sven Pran] > And asking "What are we entitled to know from this auction?" shifts > the responsibility of a missing detail which turns up important to the > responder. > Agree, but this is in part why I don't like it. It increases the risk of needing a TD/AC, because there will be so many details which woudn't be apparent to the answerer. Remember my example ? Who on Earth would, in response to a question about the sequence 1H (1S) 3C, mention the (relevant) fact that one may / may not bid 1NT over a negative double, without a stopper in their suit ? For there is no hand with which 1NT and 3C are in competition, but there is a link nevertheless. And I would feel bad if the TD/AC said me that the score will be changed because I didn't mention answers to negative doubles. In some cases, players aren't aware of such subtle inferences of their own system. Allowing specific questions, and setting easy-to-understand standards for answering them (which is where I came in), is better to this regard, and I consider this important. Best regards Alain From bridge at vwalther.de Wed Jul 29 21:18:19 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:18:19 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: "\" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> Am 27.07.2015 um 14:37 schrieb agot: > > Dear blmlists, > > I would appreciate your opinion about a point which I didn't see covered > by jurisprudence. > > It has been said more than once that, in answering quesitons about a > bid, one should not answer to the letter of the question, but rather > give every useful item of information, including inferences. > > Now, what about subsidiary questions ? Does one need to answer beyond > the question ? > > Example : > > N E S W > > 1C 1S Dbl p > 2H 3D 4H p > p p > > At the start of play, declarer asks West "do you have any 55 conventions > ?" > This might indeed be relevant to his line of play, as there might be > inferences about East's hand. > > Scenario 1 : EW do indeed play, say, 2C as a D-S two-suiter, but the bid > is either light or very strong (a popular treatment). This would void > any inferences, as East's strength probably lies in-between. Is West > asked to draw North's attention to this fact, or should North have asked > more precisely ? > > Scenario 2 : EW do indeed play some two-suited overcalls, but not with a > S-D two-suiter (they play 2C for majors, and 2NT for H and D, another > treatment which does exist in my country). Now, answering to the > positive seems to be to be playing on words, as one very clearly sees > that North is interested on what was available with S and D. So, how > should one answer ? > > Of course, here, it is fairly easy to understand what the question is > about, and therefore to answer as precisely as possible, but there are > more marginal cases. > Say the bidding has started 1C 1H 2D, and later the overcaller's side > asks "do you play negative doubles of 1H ?" > How can opponents guess whether the purpose of the question is : > - to determine whether responder could hold 4 spades and, in this case, > in which range ; > - to determine whether 2D could have been on the light side (which is > the case if a double guarantees 4 spades, but not if it denies them, as > one could have doubled) ; > - to determine whether 2D could have been relatively short (which is the > case absent a negative double). > > If one has to say everything about the negative double, it might take > some minutes. > And of course, there is always that problem about specific questions > transmitting UI. > > So, where does one draw the limit to the necessity of guessing the > inquirer's motives ? Perhaps it should depend on the inquiree's level of > expertise ? Has anything been said about this ? > > Thank you for your advice. > > > Alain > I think the law is very clear about that. L40A1b tells that I have to give complete information about our partnership understandings before commencing play. The concept of announcing, alerting and asking is only a weak substitution for the idea of full disclosure which is given here. Whenever a question indicates that the inquirer wants to know something about a special part of the system, he should get a complete answer. This includes subsidiary questions. He still is entitled to receive full information and the asked party is obliged to give it, even the his question literally only asked for a part of it. My favorite example: 1H (1NT*) 2H P P P P * Raptor, 8-17 pt, 4S, longer minor If declarer asks: "How strong was 1NT?" "8-17" is obviously correct, but incomplete, and not mentioning the information about the distribution is misinformation, even if it was not asked for. If you are asked, try to make sure the opps get any peace of information that you received from your Partner. There is no law that allows to give less. Just my 2c. Volker From agot at ulb.ac.be Thu Jul 30 16:10:01 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 16:10:01 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"" " "<557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\" \"" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> "\"" <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 29.07.2015 21:18, Volker Walther a ?crit?: > > I think the law is very clear about that. > L40A1b tells that I have to give complete information about our > partnership understandings before commencing play. Of course. But the random high-level pair will need about 3 hours to do this. And it will be useless, because you can't expect opponents to memorize the whole caboodle. So, the usual procedure is to give written documents, point to everything which may affect initial actions and choice of style, and alert whenever needed (perhaps two-tiered alerts would be better, but this hasn't been implemented yet). ion literally only asked for a part of it. > > My favorite example: > > 1H (1NT*) 2H P > P P P > > * Raptor, 8-17 pt, 4S, longer minor > > If declarer asks: "How strong was 1NT?" "8-17" is obviously correct, > but > incomplete, and not mentioning the information about the distribution > is > misinformation, even if it was not asked for. Let's be serious. This is a very bad example. Even the dumbest of opponents will know, upon hearing about a 8-17 range, that there is something else to be known, and ask more information. But here you speak only about the main aspects of the bid : range and pattern. The problem is that the letter of the law asks us to say much, much more, including some obscure inferences. When I alert my partner's 2H opening, and say "5 hearts, 4+ minor, about 7-11 HCP", I do not add "hearts should not be too weak, 2 Aces would be a liability, honor-third in spades too, vulnerability is a consideration, 11 HCP might also be opened 1H, and anyway the bid is never forced" ; even though I know all of this. Would you ? Best regards alain From hildalirsch at gmail.com Fri Jul 31 03:25:38 2015 From: hildalirsch at gmail.com (Richard Hills) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:25:38 +1000 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: Alain Gottcheiner: [snip] When I alert my partner's 2H opening, and say "5 hearts, 4+ minor, about 7-11 HCP", I do not add "hearts should not be too weak,2 Aces would be a liability, honor-third in spades too, vulnerability is a consideration, 11 HCP might also be opened 1H, and anyway the bid is never forced" ; even though I know all of this. Would you ? Richard Hills: Yes I would and I did. Put me alongside Steve Willner and Volker Walther. When I played the idiosyncratic and unusual Symmetric Relay system with Hashmat Ali, I very carefully described its positive and negative inferences. Some of my expert opponents noticed that I enjoyed giving Full Disclosure, so they taunted me by refusing to ask any questions. :-) :-) Best wishes, Richard Hills On Friday, July 31, 2015, agot > wrote: > Le 29.07.2015 21:18, Volker Walther a ?crit : > > > > > I think the law is very clear about that. > > L40A1b tells that I have to give complete information about our > > partnership understandings before commencing play. > > Of course. But the random high-level pair will need about 3 hours to do > this. And it will be useless, because you can't expect opponents to > memorize the whole caboodle. > > So, the usual procedure is to give written documents, point to > everything which may affect initial actions and choice of style, and > alert whenever needed (perhaps two-tiered alerts would be better, but > this hasn't been implemented yet). > > > ion literally only asked for a part of it. > > > > My favorite example: > > > > 1H (1NT*) 2H P > > P P P > > > > * Raptor, 8-17 pt, 4S, longer minor > > > > If declarer asks: "How strong was 1NT?" "8-17" is obviously correct, > > but > > incomplete, and not mentioning the information about the distribution > > is > > misinformation, even if it was not asked for. > > Let's be serious. This is a very bad example. Even the dumbest of > opponents will know, upon hearing about a 8-17 range, that there is > something else to be known, and ask more information. > > But here you speak only about the main aspects of the bid : range and > pattern. The problem is that the letter of the law asks us to say much, > much more, including some obscure inferences. > > When I alert my partner's 2H opening, and say "5 hearts, 4+ minor, about > 7-11 HCP", I do not add "hearts should not be too weak, 2 Aces would be > a liability, honor-third in spades too, vulnerability is a > consideration, 11 HCP might also be opened 1H, and anyway the bid is > never forced" ; even though I know all of this. Would you ? > > Best regards > > > alain > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20150731/53ec63fe/attachment.html From bridge at vwalther.de Fri Jul 31 12:34:20 2015 From: bridge at vwalther.de (Volker Walther) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:34:20 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\"" " "<557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\" \"" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> "\"" <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <55BB4F2C.8050009@vwalther.de> Am 30.07.2015 um 16:10 schrieb agot: > Le 29.07.2015 21:18, Volker Walther a ?crit : > >> >> I think the law is very clear about that. >> L40A1b tells that I have to give complete information about our >> partnership understandings before commencing play. > > Of course. But the random high-level pair will need about 3 hours to do > this. And it will be useless, because you can't expect opponents to > memorize the whole caboodle. > > So, the usual procedure is to give written documents, point to > everything which may affect initial actions and choice of style, and > alert whenever needed (perhaps two-tiered alerts would be better, but > this hasn't been implemented yet). > > > ion literally only asked for a part of it. >> >> My favorite example: >> >> 1H (1NT*) 2H P >> P P P >> >> * Raptor, 8-17 pt, 4S, longer minor >> >> If declarer asks: "How strong was 1NT?" "8-17" is obviously correct, >> but >> incomplete, and not mentioning the information about the distribution >> is >> misinformation, even if it was not asked for. > > Let's be serious. This is a very bad example. Even the dumbest of > opponents will know, upon hearing about a 8-17 range, that there is > something else to be known, and ask more information. I do not agree. Why should I be entitled to shift the responsibility for finding the correct additional question, that forces to complete my answer, and that does not create UI, to the opps? How would you rule, if my opps (some LOL) do not ask, and the missing information leads to damage? Now you need something like the American obligation to protect yourself. By the way: I think the best way of asking questions is very simple: "Please explain!" > > But here you speak only about the main aspects of the bid : range and > pattern. The problem is that the letter of the law asks us to say much, > much more, including some obscure inferences. > > When I alert my partner's 2H opening, and say "5 hearts, 4+ minor, about > 7-11 HCP", I do not add "hearts should not be too weak, 2 Aces would be > a liability, honor-third in spades too, vulnerability is a > consideration, 11 HCP might also be opened 1H, and anyway the bid is > never forced" ; even though I know all of this. Would you ? At least I would try to find a description of the bid that gives opps a good idea what the purpose of our agreement is. Probably I would it describe it that way: "Preemtive, two-suiter with hearts and a minor 7 to 10 somtimes 11 pt, hearts must be (exactly) five cards, the minor can be for." I think "two-suiter" implies that there should be no 3 spades, and "preemtive" indicates that there should not be two aces and that it is an unforced bid. If there is an explicit agreement about never bidding 2H with two aces or three Spades, I would tell this. But if we just agree: "Preempting with two aces is bad bridge and should be avoided" and "You should not preempt against spades when you have support for spades and a shortness" this can be regarded as common knowledge and needs no further explanation. Kind regards, Volker From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 31 16:30:05 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:30:05 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: <55BB4F2C.8050009@vwalther.de> References: "\"\\\"\\\\\\\" " "\" \"" <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3>\" "\"\\\\\\\"\\\" <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>\\\\\\\" <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> \\\"\\\\\\\"\\\" <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de>" <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be>" <55BB4F2C.8050009@vwalther.de> Message-ID: <77e807c434170ef2e1e2e2d1ad6f8f23@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 31.07.2015 12:34, Volker Walther a ?crit?: > Am 30.07.2015 um 16:10 schrieb agot: >> Le 29.07.2015 21:18, Volker Walther a ?crit : >> >>> >>> I think the law is very clear about that. >>> L40A1b tells that I have to give complete information about our >>> partnership understandings before commencing play. >> >> Of course. But the random high-level pair will need about 3 hours to >> do >> this. And it will be useless, because you can't expect opponents to >> memorize the whole caboodle. >> >> So, the usual procedure is to give written documents, point to >> everything which may affect initial actions and choice of style, and >> alert whenever needed (perhaps two-tiered alerts would be better, but >> this hasn't been implemented yet). >> >> >> ion literally only asked for a part of it. >>> >>> My favorite example: >>> >>> 1H (1NT*) 2H P >>> P P P >>> >>> * Raptor, 8-17 pt, 4S, longer minor >>> >>> If declarer asks: "How strong was 1NT?" "8-17" is obviously correct, >>> but >>> incomplete, and not mentioning the information about the distribution >>> is >>> misinformation, even if it was not asked for. >> >> Let's be serious. This is a very bad example. Even the dumbest of >> opponents will know, upon hearing about a 8-17 range, that there is >> something else to be known, and ask more information. > > I do not agree. Why should I be entitled to shift the responsibility > for > finding the correct additional question, that forces to complete my > answer, and that does not create UI, to the opps? > > How would you rule, if my opps (some LOL) do not ask, and the missing > information leads to damage? Now you need something like the American > obligation to protect yourself. > > By the way: I think the best way of asking questions is very simple: > "Please explain!" AG : of course, and that's why, when a more specific question is asked, one might assume that what one wants to know is what is asked. Is it absurd to pretend that, if a player asks about the range only, which is departure from the optimal procedure, he is interested in range only ? In your example, say I'm declarer. I noticed the alert, looked at the convention card, saw that the bis was 2-suited, and *now* I want to know the range, in order to count honors as they appear. What's strange with that ? But the original problem was when the question wasn't related to any bid which was made ; in this case, you would be compelled to give full disclosure of ... what exactly ? Best regards Alain From agot at ulb.ac.be Fri Jul 31 16:37:10 2015 From: agot at ulb.ac.be (agot) Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:37:10 +0200 Subject: [BLML] Answering about details In-Reply-To: References: <557FB42873CD4C648136D06A60547546@G3> <7bb8b388f568633071635d2f0713c3b1@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55AF9734.9040108@nhcc.net> <2ba86061ee63eb7d5e2d4748a834db3d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> <55B1113D.2030605@googlemail.com> <55B926FB.6030509@vwalther.de> <2e45a33ab7f5c32ce0f6c3ed68d5702d@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Message-ID: <873bd89a82407c6c1d4740a825dcab12@imapproxy.vub.ac.be> Le 31.07.2015 03:25, Richard Hills a ?crit?: > Alain Gottcheiner: > > ?[snip] > > When I alert my partner's 2H opening, and say "5 hearts, 4+ minor, > about?7-11 HCP", I do not add "hearts should not be too weak,2 Aces > would be?a liability, honor-third in spades too, vulnerability is > a?consideration, 11 HCP might also be opened 1H, and anyway the bid > is?never forced" ; even though I know all of this. Would you ? > > Richard Hills: > > ? > Yes I would and I did. Put me alongside Steve Willner and Volker > Walther.? When I played the idiosyncratic and unusual Symmetric Relay > system with Hashmat Ali, I very carefully described its positive and > negative inferences. > > Some of my expert opponents noticed that I enjoyed giving Full > Disclosure, so they taunted me by refusing to ask any questions. :-) > :-) I understand that ; I've been a relayer myself. But in most cases, giving all details would be harmful to the opponent's comprehension. As they say it, too much information voids information. One interesting example is high jumps. What opponents would want to know at the time they're made is whether this is a fit-jump, a splinter, or a global description (like in fruit-machine Swiss) ; also perhaps the range and how many trumps are guaranteed. I doubt they would find it essential, at that time, to know the minimal holding in side suits (for a splinter), or what whether one splinters or bids economically with a good suit and a singleton. If they want to know specifically this (probably at the time of lead), they'll ask. My guess is that your opponents didn't ask because they needed time to play the deals.And that's the main problem with explaining in full detail. Best regards ?lain